[Phil]

In my 99ers yesterday, East was playing 4♥.

North made a lead out of turn (♣10), but before the East exercised her rights, South played the ♣K. I was then called to the table. These were not simultaneous leads, south just had a brain fart and was playing prematurely.

So I give East her options, and the lawyer in her can't resist the option of having two penalty cards on the table.

So I'm thinking - "two penalty cards" and take a quick look at Law 51, but that section deals with only one player having two penalty cards. L57 and L58 looked like they might apply, but I couldn't find anything conclusive.

In the end, South led an off-suit Ace, so declarer exercised her rights under 50D2, barred a club lead and the ♣K was returned to hand. In time, the ♣10 was disposed of as well.

Is there a section that discusses penalty cards held by two different players?

Somehow, I don't feel as though this was handled properly however.

[RMB1]

The real complication when both defenders have major penalty cards is how to deal with the lead penalties when either defender is on lead. Once the lead to each trick has been made then the defenders must play their major penalty card if legal.

When a defender is on lead and both defenders have one major penalty card each then declarer has three options:

1. Make no lead penalty: defender on lead leads his penalty card, other penalty card remains as a penalty card.

2./3. Require/Forbid the lead of the suit of the other defender's penalty card, the other defender's penalty card is picked up and restored to hand and is no longer a penalty card.

In one of 2. or 3. (depending on whether the two penalty cards are in the same or different suits) the defender on lead will have to lead his penalty card because it complies with the lead penalty. This case is strictly more lenient on the defence than option 1.

In the other case, the defender has to comply with the lead penalty and does not play the penalty card, which remains a penalty card. (Law 50D1b: 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, ...)

[pran]

Phil, on Sep 4 2010, 04:09 PM, said:

In my 99ers yesterday, East was playing 4♥.

North made a lead out of turn (♣10), but before the East exercised her rights, South played the ♣K. I was then called to the table. These were not simultaneous leads, south just had a brain fart and was playing prematurely.

So I give East her options, and the lawyer in her can't resist the option of having two penalty cards on the table.

So I'm thinking - "two penalty cards" and take a quick look at Law 51, but that section deals with only one player having two penalty cards. L57 and L58 looked like they might apply, but I couldn't find anything conclusive.

In the end, South led an off-suit Ace, so declarer exercised her rights under 50D2, barred a club lead and the ♣K was returned to hand. In time, the ♣10 was disposed of as well. 

Is there a section that discusses penalty cards held by two different players?

Somehow, I don't feel as though this was handled properly however.  

Accepting as a fact that South really led his ♣K subsequent to the lead out of turn of the ♣10 so that Law 58A does not apply, this ♣K is a defender's card prematurely exposed in an act of leading or playing it so it becomes a major penalty card (regardless of its rank).

The Director will now apply Law 54 on the opening lead of ♣10 from North out of turn :

a: If Declarer accepts this lead out of turn then South must follow suit with his ♣K and the case is "closed".

b: If declarer does not accept the lead out of turn then the ♣10 (also) becomes a major penalty card and Declarer has the choice of:

b1: require or prohibit the lead of a club from South, in which case the ♣10 ceases to be a penalty card and is restored to North's hand while South must lead a card according to Declarer's decision. If this decision is a request for a club then South must play his ♣K, otherwise South plays any of his cards (other than a club) at his own choice and the ♣K remains a major penalty card.

b2: not to require or prohibit a lead of a club from South, in which case the ♣10 remains a penalty card and South is free to lead any of his cards at his own choice. However, South must then now lead his his ♣K and North must follow suit with his ♣10 as both these cards are major penalty cards in this situation.

Laws 50-52 apply individually to each defender when both defenders have penalty card(s).

[axman]

Phil, on Sep 4 2010, 10:09 AM, said:

In my 99ers yesterday, East was playing 4♥.

North made a lead out of turn (♣10), but before the East exercised her rights, South played the ♣K. I was then called to the table. These were not simultaneous leads, south just had a brain fart and was playing prematurely.

So I give East her options, and the lawyer in her can't resist the option of having two penalty cards on the table.

So I'm thinking - "two penalty cards" and take a quick look at Law 51, but that section deals with only one player having two penalty cards. L57 and L58 looked like they might apply, but I couldn't find anything conclusive.

In the end, South led an off-suit Ace, so declarer exercised her rights under 50D2, barred a club lead and the ♣K was returned to hand. In time, the ♣10 was disposed of as well.

Is there a section that discusses penalty cards held by two different players?

Somehow, I don't feel as though this was handled properly however.

The POOT must be retracted and is a PC [L57A]. The LOOT may??? be accepted [L53]; however, this is direct conflict with L57A which requires that the LOOT must be retracted to become a PC- it having been played prior to South’s rightful turn.

As the law requires an automatic retraction of both cards there is the L57A penalty option for W to choose for S’s lead:

1. require offender’s partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led, or
2. require offender’s partner to play the lowest card he holds of the suit led, or
3. forbid offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer.

If the selected penalty is not the PC it remains so. Further, if the CK is not the card that S plays legally to the trick then E has a choice of L57A penalties against N at his turn to the trick:

1. require offender’s partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led, or
2. require offender’s partner to play the lowest card he holds of the suit led, or
3. forbid offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer.

There remains the PC requirements as well as potential PC lead options to future tricks.

[pran]

axman, on Sep 4 2010, 05:57 PM, said:

Phil, on Sep 4 2010, 10:09 AM, said:

In my 99ers yesterday, East was playing 4♥.

North made a lead out of turn (♣10), but before the East exercised her rights, South played the ♣K. I was then called to the table. These were not simultaneous leads, south just had a brain fart and was playing prematurely.

So I give East her options, and the lawyer in her can't resist the option of having two penalty cards on the table.

So I'm thinking - "two penalty cards" and take a quick look at Law 51, but that section deals with only one player having two penalty cards. L57 and L58 looked like they might apply, but I couldn't find anything conclusive.

In the end, South led an off-suit Ace, so declarer exercised her rights under 50D2, barred a club lead and the ♣K was returned to hand. In time, the ♣10 was disposed of as well. 

Is there a section that discusses penalty cards held by two different players?

Somehow, I don't feel as though this was handled properly however. 

The POOT must be retracted and is a PC [L57A]. The LOOT may??? be accepted [L53]; however, this is direct conflict with L57A which requires that the LOOT must be retracted to become a PC- it having been played prior to South’s rightful turn.

As the law requires an automatic retraction of both cards there is the L57A penalty option for W to choose for S’s lead:

1. require offender’s partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led, or
2. require offender’s partner to play the lowest card he holds of the suit led, or
3. forbid offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer.

If the selected penalty is not the PC it remains so. Further, if the CK is not the card that S plays legally to the trick then E has a choice of L57A penalties against N at his turn to the trick:

1. require offender’s partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led, or
2. require offender’s partner to play the lowest card he holds of the suit led, or
3. forbid offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer.

There remains the PC requirements as well as potential PC lead options to future tricks.

Sorry, but you are looking at the incorrect law!

Unless Law 58 applies the applicable Law is 54 for opening leads out of turn (by a defender).

Law 57 never applies to a lead to the first trick - notice the opening clause in Law 57:

When a defender leads to the next trick

[blackshoe]

Does declarer get to see dummy before making his decision on the penalty cards? Can he choose to make his partner dummy, and leave the lead restrictions question to his partner?

[pran]

blackshoe, on Sep 4 2010, 09:47 PM, said:

Does declarer get to see dummy before making his decision on the penalty cards? Can he choose to make his partner dummy, and leave the lead restrictions question to his partner?

After a faced opening lead out of turn Declarer effectively has five alternatives between which to choose:
1: Accept the OLOOT and be Declarer
2: Accept the OLOOT and be Dummy
3: Reject the OLOOT and request a lead in the exposed suit
4: Reject the OLOOT and forbid a lead in the exposed suit
5: Reject the OLOOT and neither request nor forbid the suit led.

Declarer must make his choice without seeing any of his partner's cards or exchanging any information with his partner.

[blackshoe]

Okay. Say declarer accepts the lead. As I read it, per Law 54B the next thing that happens is that dummy comes down. So if the two faced defender's cards are in the same suit, declarer gets to choose his play from both his hand and dummy knowing what defenders' cards will be played to the trick. And if they're in different suits, he gets to see what cards are in his and dummy's hands before deciding what to play from his hand (but not before seeing what third hand will play). And if the suits are different, and the opening leader remains on lead, declarer gets to see the dummy before deciding which of his lead options to take.

If declarer rejects the OLOOT, then his LHO's faced card (which up to now has been a major penalty card) becomes the opening lead, willy-nilly. That card is led, and dummy comes down. If the PCs are in the same suit, that will be the end of it, because third hand must play it to the first trick, but if they're in different suits, then declarer will have lead options on the second trick if opening leader retains the lead. And declarer is entitled to know all this before he plays from either hand to trick one.

Have I missed anything?

[pran]

blackshoe, on Sep 5 2010, 02:25 AM, said:

Okay. Say declarer accepts the lead. As I read it, per Law 54B the next thing that happens is that dummy comes down. So if the two faced defender's cards are in the same suit, declarer gets to choose his play from both his hand and dummy knowing what defenders' cards will be played to the trick. And if they're in different suits, he gets to see what cards are in his and dummy's hands before deciding what to play from his hand (but not before seeing what third hand will play). And if the suits are different, and the opening leader remains on lead, declarer gets to see the dummy before deciding which of his lead options to take.

If declarer rejects the OLOOT, then his LHO's faced card (which up to now has been a major penalty card) becomes the opening lead, willy-nilly. That card is led, and dummy comes down. If the PCs are in the same suit, that will be the end of it, because third hand must play it to the first trick, but if they're in different suits, then declarer will have lead options on the second trick if opening leader retains the lead. And declarer is entitled to know all this before he plays from either hand to trick one.

Have I missed anything?

No, it seems to me that you have got it all correct.

(Only keep in mind that if he accepts the OLOOT and chooses to become dummy {alternative 2} then he of course becomes dummy immediately, and all decisions from thereon are up to his partner to make as declarer.)

Also to be precise: (quoting from, and editing your post):
And if the suits are different, and the opening leader remains on lead, declarer gets to see the dummy before deciding which of his lead options to take at the next (and if applicable subsequent) trick(s).

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on Sep 5 2010, 02:25 AM, said:

If declarer rejects the OLOOT, then his LHO's faced card (which up to now has been a major penalty card) becomes the opening lead, willy-nilly. That card is led, and dummy comes down. If the PCs are in the same suit, that will be the end of it, because third hand must play it to the first trick, but if they're in different suits, then declarer will have lead options on the second trick if opening leader retains the lead. And declarer is entitled to know all this before he plays from either hand to trick one.

Have I missed anything?

I disagree. LHO is subject to lead restriction because RHO has a major penalty card. If the PCs are in the same suit and declarer forbids the lead of RHO's suit OR if the PCs are in different suit and declarer requires the lead of RHO's suit THEN LHO does not lead his faced card (see L50D1b quoted upthread). Instead he complies with the lead restriction and his faced card remains a MPC (but RHO picks up his faced card).

[pran]

RMB1, on Sep 5 2010, 09:50 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 5 2010, 02:25 AM, said:

If declarer rejects the OLOOT, then his LHO's faced card (which up to now has been a major penalty card) becomes the opening lead, willy-nilly. That card is led, and dummy comes down. If the PCs are in the same suit, that will be the end of it, because third hand must play it to the first trick, but if they're in different suits, then declarer will have lead options on the second trick if opening leader retains the lead. And declarer is entitled to know all this before he plays from either hand to trick one.

Have I missed anything?

I disagree. LHO is subject to lead restriction because RHO has a major penalty card. If the PCs are in the same suit and declarer forbids the lead of RHO's suit OR if the PCs are in different suit and declarer requires the lead of RHO's suit THEN LHO does not lead his faced card (see L50D1b quoted upthread). Instead he complies with the lead restriction and his faced card remains a MPC (but RHO picks up his faced card).

Correct.

[blackshoe]

Heh. This turns out to be a straightforward "follow the book" ruling, but it's not all that simple after all, is it?

[pran]

blackshoe, on Sep 5 2010, 12:17 PM, said:

Heh. This turns out to be a straightforward "follow the book" ruling, but it's not all that simple after all, is it?

That obviously depends on your understanding of the word "simple".