[dickiegera]

South is declarer and is on lead after winning trick.
Both East and West lead out of turn [different suits]. I know that declarer can accept either of
the leads however what about other card? Is it a major penalty card or is it to be returned to defenders hand?
Also may South chose to allow both cards to be major penalty cards?
If so what happens when lets say East obtains lead?
Is East required to lead his card or does South have options [ Like requiring or forbidding lead of West's card]

Thank you

[blackshoe]

If declarer accepts one defender's LOOT, the other's card remains a major penalty card. If he accepts neither LOOT, both defenders' cards are MPCs.

If a defender is on lead and has a MPC, he must lead that card. If he does not have a MPC, but his partner does, then declarer may choose to allow or prohibit the lead of the suit of MPC for as long as that defender retains the lead, in which case the MPC is picked up and returned to hand. If declarer does not require or prohibit the lead of that suit, defender can lead whatever he likes. The MPC remains an MPC. Declarer still has the same options so long as the MPC remains, whenever the MPC holder's partner gains the lead.

The relevant laws are 56, 54D, 50D and 50E (the last dealing with UI from penalty cards).

Added: the struck out part of the ruling is incorrect. See post number seven in this thread.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2011-July-02, 19:07
Reason for edit: correct incorrect ruling

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-02, 11:33, said:

If declarer accepts one defender's LOOT, the other's card remains a major penalty card. If he accepts neither LOOT, both defenders' cards are MPCs.

If a defender is on lead and has a MPC, he must lead that card. If he does not have a MPC, but his partner does, .....
The relevant laws are 56, 54D, 50D and 50E (the last dealing with UI from penalty cards).

My understanding of language leads me to parse:

L50D1 (b) 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.

as 'when pard has a MPC then the lead restrictions takes precedence over PC play restrictions'

[blackshoe]

If declarer imposes a lead restriction (requires or prohibits the lead of a particular suit) then the leader's partner's MPC is no longer an MPC. It is returned to his hand, and he can play whatever he likes. So I don't see how 50D1{b} can be read as you have in this case. Also, 50D1{a} makes the flat statement "a major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity…" so I don't see how declarer can say to the holder of such a card "do not lead that suit", since that would require him to not comply with 50D1{a}.

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-02, 12:31, said:

If declarer imposes a lead restriction (requires or prohibits the lead of a particular suit) then the leader's partner's MPC is no longer an MPC. It is returned to his hand, and he can play whatever he likes. So I don't see how 50D1{b} can be read as you have in this case. Also, 50D1{a} makes the flat statement "a major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity…" so I don't see how declarer can say to the holder of such a card "do not lead that suit", since that would require him to not comply with 50D1{a}.

I'm on lead, I have the KS as a MPC. My partner has the KH as a MPC. Declarer gets the option to require or prohibit a heart lead and so requires the _KH_ is now picked up, and I have the KS as a MPC (which I must lead) and a requirement to lead a heart (which I can't do if I lead the KS). L50D1 (b) resolves this as axman says with "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" - ie, just as I must not revoke in order to play my MPC, I must not fail to lead the required heart, in order to play my MPC. In other words, the MPC is played 'at the first legal opportunity', but now is not a legal opportunity, for I must lead a heart (voids not withstanding).

[pran]

I take the liberty to correct just one little (I am convinced accidental) error:

blackshoe, on 2011-July-02, 11:33, said:

If declarer accepts one defender's LOOT, the other's card remains a major penalty card. If he accepts neither LOOT, both defenders' cards are MPCs.

If a defender is on lead and has a MPC, he must lead that card. If he does not have a MPC, but his partner does, then declarer may choose to allow require, or prohibit the lead of the suit of MPC for as long as that defender retains the lead, in which case the MPC is picked up and returned to hand. If declarer does not require or prohibit the lead of that suit, defender can lead whatever he likes. The MPC remains an MPC. Declarer still has the same options so long as the MPC remains, whenever the MPC holder's partner gains the lead.

The relevant laws are 56, 54D, 50D and 50E (the last dealing with UI from penalty cards).

(Notice also the comma after "require". "require" does not apply after the affected MPC is picked up)

[blackshoe]

The law says "require", not "allow", true. But there is no comma after "require" in my copy of the laws.

Quote

Law 50D2: When a defender has the lead while his partner has a major penalty card, he may not lead until declarer has stated which of the options below is selected (if the defender leads prematurely, he is subject to rectification under Law 49). Declarer may choose:
(a) to require* the defender to lead the suit of the penalty card or to prohibit* him from leading that suit for as long as he retains the lead. For two or more penalty cards, see Law 51. if declarer exercises either of these options, the card is no longer a penalty card and is picked up.
(b) not to require or prohibit a lead, in which case the defender may lead any card; the penalty card remains a penalty card**. if this option is selected, Law 50D continues to apply for as long as the penalty card remains.

* If the player is unable to lead as required, see Law 59.
** If the partner of the defender with the penalty card retains the lead, and the penalty card has not yet been played, then all the requirements and options of Law 50D2 apply again at the following trick.

I had looked at Law 50D1{a}'s "A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping," and felt that the first clause of this sentence required the lead of the MPC. However, as Axman pointed out upthread, Law 50D1{b} says "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." I hadn't taken in the implications of the highlighted portion of this law. I withdraw my earlier ruling. Instead:

If declarer accepts one defender's LOOT, the other's card remains a major penalty card. If he accepts neither LOOT, both defenders' cards are MPCs.

If a defender is on lead and has a MPC and his partner does not, he must lead that card. If both defenders have MPCs, or only leader's partner has a MPC, then declarer may choose to require or prohibit the lead of the suit of leader's partner's MPC for as long as that defender retains the lead, in which case the MPC is picked up and returned to hand. If declarer does not require or prohibit the lead of that suit, defender can lead whatever he likes. The MPC remains an MPC. Declarer still has the same options so long as the MPC remains, whenever the MPC holder's partner gains the lead. In either case, the leader's MPC remains a MPC. If leader has no card of a suit he is required to lead, he can lead what he likes (Law 59).

The relevant laws are 56, 54D, 50D, 59 and 50E (the last dealing with UI from penalty cards).

Better?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-02, 19:05, said:

The law says "require", not "allow", true. But there is no comma after "require" in my copy of the laws.



I had looked at Law 50D1{a}'s "A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping," and felt that the first clause of this sentence required the lead of the MPC. However, as I Axman pointed out upthread, Law 50D1{b} says "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." I hadn't taken in the implications of the highlighted portion of this law. I withdraw my earlier ruling. Instead:

If declarer accepts one defender's LOOT, the other's card remains a major penalty card. If he accepts neither LOOT, both defenders' cards are MPCs.

If a defender is on lead and has a MPC and his partner does not, he must lead that card. If both defenders have MPCs, or only leader's partner has a MPC, then declarer may choose to require or prohibit the lead of the suit of leader's partner's MPC for as long as that defender retains the lead, in which case the MPC is picked up and returned to hand. If declarer does not require or prohibit the lead of that suit, defender can lead whatever he likes. The MPC remains an MPC. Declarer still has the same options so long as the MPC remains, whenever the MPC holder's partner gains the lead. In either case, the leader's MPC remains a MPC. If leader has no card of a suit he is required to lead, he can lead what he likes (Law 59).

The relevant laws are 56, 54D, 50D, 59 and 50E (the last dealing with UI from penalty cards).

Better?

Sure.
What caused me to insert the comma in your original statement is that if declarer requires a lead in the MPC suit this requirement applies only to his first lead while if declarer prohibits a lead in the MPC suit then this prohibition lasts for as long as he retains the lead.

regards

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-02, 19:05, said:

If declarer accepts one defender's LOOT, the other's card remains a major penalty card. If he accepts neither LOOT, both defenders' cards are MPCs.

If a defender is on lead and has a MPC and his partner does not, he must lead that card. If both defenders have MPCs, or only leader's partner has a MPC, then declarer may choose to require or prohibit the lead of the suit of leader's partner's MPC for as long as that defender retains the lead, in which case the MPC is picked up and returned to hand. If declarer does not require or prohibit the lead of that suit, defender can lead whatever he likes. The MPC remains an MPC. Declarer still has the same options so long as the MPC remains, whenever the MPC holder's partner gains the lead. In either case, the leader's MPC remains a MPC. If leader has no card of a suit he is required to lead, he can lead what he likes (Law 59).

The relevant laws are 56, 54D, 50D, 59 and 50E (the last dealing with UI from penalty cards).

Better?

Better, but you've not followed through the implications of both having an MPC. I think the end result is (assuming both have MPCs, in different suits, and defender A is on lead):

- declarer makes no specification about defender B's penalty card: defender A must lead his MPC, defender B's MPC stays
- declarer requires the lead of defender B's suit and defender A is not void: defender A must lead that suit, his MPC remains and defender B's MPC is picked up
- declarer requires the lead of defender B's suit and defender A is void: defender A must lead his MPC and defender B's MPC is picked up
- declarer bars the lead of defender B's suit: defender A must lead his MPC and defender B's MPC is picked up

when a lead restriction allows the lead of the suit in which the leader has an MPC (either by barring another suit or by requiring a suit in which he is void), it's now legal to play the MPC and ergo he must do so.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-July-03, 03:16, said:

Sure.
What caused me to insert the comma in your original statement is that if declarer requires a lead in the MPC suit this requirement applies only to his first lead while if declarer prohibits a lead in the MPC suit then this prohibition lasts for as long as he retains the lead.

regards

True. I'm not doing very well with this ruling, am I?

mjj is right that when declarer declines to require the lead of the suit of leader's partner's MPC, leader must lead his MPC. A declarer who carefully words his choice would say something like "I neither require not prohibit the lead of any particular suit", but most declarers will probably say (to the leader) "lead whatever you like". TD must be quick to step in and remind the leader he must lead his MPC. If declarer prohibits the lead of the suit of leader's partner's MPC, leader must also lead his MPC (unless it's of that suit) and TD must be sure to clarify that, as well.

Maybe the TD would do best to say that declarer should inform the TD of his choice, and that leader should take no action without further instruction from the TD.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-03, 07:22, said:

Maybe the TD would do best to say that declarer should inform the TD of his choice, and that leader should take no action without further instruction from the TD.

This is why players aren't supposed to lead until the TD says so. Declarer may not always word their choice in the best way (consider the thread where declarer said "I want a club lead" when that wasn't one of his options), and the TD can get clarification or restate the leader's obligation more clearly.

[mgoetze]

dickiegera, on 2011-July-02, 10:21, said:

Both East and West lead out of turn [different suits].

Very suggestive wording. If you just say, both East and West play a card at about the same time, then it is not immediately clear whether they are both leading out of turn, or only one of them is leading out of turn and the other is possibly revoking.

[blackshoe]

I suppose that scenario is (just barely) possible, but it seems much more likely they were both leading to the trick. I suppose the TD should ask them.

[mgoetze]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-05, 11:12, said:

I suppose that scenario is (just barely) possible, but it seems much more likely they were both leading to the trick. I suppose the TD should ask them.

But you see, I'm not sure their intention matters. Fact is they both put a card on the table, and the question then is what does the book have to say about that?

[blackshoe]

It is well known that the laws do not handle multiple infractions well. We do the best we can.

[bluejak]

While the Laws do not say so, it is clear to me from the Laws and many considerations of various happenings that the intent matters in whether a card is led or otherwise exposed. So in my view if two cards are led we treat them as that.