[lamford]

---

Matchpoints. Opening lead ♠ Table result 3NT-2 NS -200.

East on the above hand from a North London club is approaching his telegram from the queen, and South, who looks and behaves like SB, was quick to try to take advantage. West led the four of spades, and East played the queen and king at the same time, mainly because he was less nimble with his fingers than in his earlier years. SB called the director politely, sensing a gain, and the director ruled that the intended card, the queen, was played, and the king remained on the table as a major penalty card. SB did not want to stake all on the club finesse, so he won with the ace and took what he thought was a 100% line of leading low towards the queen of hearts. West went in with the ace, but accidentally dropped the jack of spades at the same time. The director was still present, and was quick to rule. "Oh dear," he said to West, "I am afraid that the jack of spades is also a major penalty card." ... "Hold on, please, while I check the Law Book", said the TD. "No need to bother," said SB, South, "I have been stitched up and West will be forced to lead the jack of spades." "That is right," said the TD, "please lead that card; although 50D1(b) specifies that a penalty card need not be played to comply with a lead restriction, at the time of the penalty card there was no lead restriction, and therefore it has to be led. The fact that subsequently there would be a lead restriction does not seem to prevent it being led." After SB had gone two down, he had the director back again. "I think that there was a breach of Law 23 here," he claimed. "West could have been aware that dropping the jack of spades would work to his advantage". "I don't agree," said the TD, "unless West is the best actor since Jack Nicholson, he could not have been aware". "Well, I am still not happy," SB ranted on, "the penalty card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side". "On the contrary," replied the TD, "with the penalty card, West should have ducked the first heart to save the overtrick, without it he should rise and beat the contract. And there clearly was no LA to the continuation of the jack of spades, which was a forced play". "Well, I think you adjust under 12A1 in that the Laws did not provide indemnity for the particular type of violation by this opponent". The TD was unimpressed. "The laws did provide indemnity," he stated, "but it proved to be unduly generous to the offenders. That is just rub of the green."

How would you rule? And would you rule differently if SB was West?

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2014-October-22, 03:52, said:

the director ruled that the intended card, the queen, was played, and the king remained on the table as a major penalty card.

Not technically correct, though it makes no difference here.

lamford, on 2014-October-22, 03:52, said:

"That is right," said the TD, "please lead that card; although 50D1(b) specifies that a penalty card need not be played to comply with a lead restriction, at the time of the penalty card there was no lead restriction, and therefore it has to be led.

I can see nothing in the wording of the laws that would lead you to this interpretation.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2014-October-22, 04:44, said:

Not technically correct, though it makes no difference here.


I can see nothing in the wording of the laws that would lead you to this interpretation.

OK. I presume you think that declarer does not lose his right to refuse a spade lead, even though the penalty card has to be played at the first legal opportunity. I think you would be right if the declarer had said "don't lead a spade" before the jack of spades was dropped. There must be some minute or precedent for both defenders having a penalty card at the same time. Does anyone know what it is?

[ahydra]

I think gordontd is right. 50D2 says "[the partner of the guy with the MPC] may not lead until...", and 50D1 says clarifies that the first legal opportunity may be in leading. So declarer has the right to choose an option before we decide what happens to the jack of spades. At this point I guess South says he doesn't want a spade led, East picks up his MPC (but not West), and we continue as usual.

ahydra

[Lanor Fow]

Why does 23 not apply? The 'actor' part isn't relevant as the law doesn't say did know, or might have known, but could have known.

[campboy]

I agree with gordontd and ahydra. West does not have a legal opportunity to play the ♠J (or anything else) before South chooses an option, since that would breach 50D2.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2014-October-22, 04:56, said:

There must be some minute or precedent for both defenders having a penalty card at the same time. Does anyone know what it is?

There may well not be, since I doubt if anyone has previously had difficulty in this with the laws worded as they are.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2014-October-22, 04:56, said:

OK. I presume you think that declarer does not lose his right to refuse a spade lead, even though the penalty card has to be played at the first legal opportunity. I think you would be right if the declarer had said "don't lead a spade" before the jack of spades was dropped. There must be some minute or precedent for both defenders having a penalty card at the same time. Does anyone know what it is?

There's the White Book, 8.50.3:

Quote

Law 50D: Penalty cards for both defenders
In the case where both defenders have penalty cards, the possible lead restriction on partner takes priority over that caused by the player’s own penalty card.
For example, West is on lead: West has ♠J as a penalty card and East has ♠7 as a major penalty card.
If South (declarer) forbids a spade lead, the ♠7 must be put back in East’s hand, while West cannot lead their penalty card (for as long as West remains on lead).
If South demands a spade lead, ♠7 goes back and West has to play ♠J.
If South does not exercise their options related to East’s penalty card, West has to play ♠J and East’s ♠7 remains as a penalty card, and must be played to the trick.
The TD explains these consequences before declarer makes their choice of lead penalty.

I also don't have difficulty with the wording of law 50D1(b):

Quote

The obligation to follow suit, or to comply with a lead or play restriction, takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card, but the penalty card must still be left face up on the table and played at the next legal opportunity.

[barmar]

I'm still waiting for SB to claim director error, too. When SB said "No need to bother", he seemed to be choosing one of his options regarding the penalty card, but the TD allowed this before explaining all the option.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2014-October-22, 05:46, said:

There may well not be, since I doubt if anyone has previously had difficulty in this with the laws worded as they are.

I agree that your interpretation is correct, although a county TD last night wrongly required the penalty card to be played at the first opportunity. That was a non-established revoke when her partner had a penalty card, but the principle is the same! As it happens, I wanted the penalty card led, and my partner thought I had no choice, and she was a county director as well.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2014-October-22, 05:46, said:

There may well not be, since I doubt if anyone has previously had difficulty in this with the laws worded as they are.

But the WB explanation is very helpful.

The real problem is that no one involved knew or remembered that there was such a thing as 50D1(b), so it occurred to none of the three county directors present to check.

[RMB1]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-22, 10:16, said:

The real problem is that no one involved knew or remembered that there was such a thing as 50D1(b), ...

The TDs need to think like the Probst Cheat. The PC could avoid any lead restriction by creating his own penalty card which "must be played"; so the TD should expect there is a law to prevent such manoeuvres.