[alphatango]

Scenario 1.

Average club players. Declarer South, West holding a major penalty card in spades, East to lead. You are called and explain the options to the table. South thinks for a moment. From her point of view, a club would be best, a spade second-best, and a red suit lead would be bad. So she says, "I want a club."

Before you can explain that this is not one of her legal options, East puts a heart on the table. He is, of course, void in clubs. Now what?

Scenario 2.

Same situation, but East is experienced.


In either case, does it matter whether East could have known that a heart would be advantageous for his side?

[RMB1]

alphatango, on 2011-June-26, 23:16, said:

Scenario 1.

Average club players. Declarer South, West holding a major penalty card in spades, East to lead. You are called and explain the options to the table. South thinks for a moment. From her point of view, a club would be best, a spade second-best, and a red suit lead would be bad. So she says, "I want a club."

Did South say this as an instruction to East, (trying) to impose a lead penalty?
OR did South say this as a question to the TD: "I want a club" ... "What should I do?" ?
OR was South just talking to herself ("I want a club" ... "What should I do?") ?

alphatango, on 2011-June-26, 23:16, said:

Before you can explain that this is not one of her legal options, East puts a heart on the table. He is, of course, void in clubs. Now what?

I am inclinded to tell them to get on with it. There was a further irregularity (wrong lead penalty) and East played rather than ask for a ruling, so I think Law 11A allows me to refuse any further rectification or penalty to either side.

alphatango, on 2011-June-26, 23:16, said:

Scenario 2.

Same situation, but East is experienced.

An experienced East may know that if he has no cards of the suit requested, then he can lead what he likes. But it really makes little difference: play continues.

[mrdct]

I don't think East's experience level is relevant. South saying "I want a club" is not exercising one of the options made available to her by the director so the TD should tell her again what her choice are. The comment, however, is AI to the defence so either defender can use that info. East's ♥ becomes a major penalty card due to 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)".

I assume declarer will now demand a ♠ lead from East, which will get interesting if West wins the trick as now South can forbid a ♥ lead!

A residual concern here, however, is whether or not the TD properly explained to the table both what South's options were and that East shall not lead until South has exercised one of those options. If the TD didn't explain things properly, we might have a Law 82B or 82C situation and need to find some sort of equitable solution but we can't really do that without seeing the entire hand.

[gordontd]

As long as I did explain the options properly, I see no reason to be lenient with East: what he has led is not in accordance with the ruling, and nor is it in line with what his opponent has mistakenly asked him to do. If he knows the laws well enough to know that he can lead what he likes when he can't comply with a lead penalty, then he should also know them well enough to know that:

Quote

L9B2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all
matters in regard to rectification.

[iviehoff]

Immediately, I do nothing. South was properly informed as to the law; South messed up his request, but East acceded to it, and South got what he asked for, even if he didn't like the consequence of it. It is too late to change what has happened. Even if we think East knew what he was playing at.

But I need to make a ruling on whether the penalty card is picked up. I'm somewhat torn about what to do with the penalty card. On the one hand, South made a request, got what he asked for, and in such circumstances a penalty card can be picked up. On the other hand, one could say that South's ill-formed request amounted to making no request at all, especially since in practice it resulted in no restriction on E. So one could argue that the penalty card stays on the table. If West, having listened to what went on, picks up his penalty card and South makes no complaint, then I will not disturb it. If West makes no move to pick it up, I think I'd better make an explicit ruling, otherwise there will be problems later. I'm inclined to direct it to be picked up, though if South complains I might think about making the other ruling, but only because in practice E was not restricted by S's restriction.

In another scenario, where the advantage to EW is less clear, E or W might complain at some stage. I will quote 11A at them, they should have asked for my protection before taking action. Especially since they had the law clearly explained to them immediately before taking action.

[iviehoff]

gordontd, on 2011-June-27, 02:25, said:

As long as I did explain the options properly, I see no reason to be lenient with East:

But do you see any reason to be so generous to South?

[gordontd]

iviehoff, on 2011-June-27, 02:31, said:

But do you see any reason to be so generous to South?

It would depend on how it was done I suppose, but I don't think it's uncommon for players to misunderstand their options in lead penalty situations and to need them explaining again. We can't allow their opponents just to dive in and lead what they like before we've had a chance to clarify.

[mgoetze]

Agree with heart becoming a penalty card.

[iviehoff]

gordontd, on 2011-June-27, 03:09, said:

It would depend on how it was done I suppose, but I don't think it's uncommon for players to misunderstand their options in lead penalty situations and to need them explaining again. We can't allow their opponents just to dive in and lead what they like before we've had a chance to clarify.

I think the suggestion that East did "dive in and lead what they like" is not really an assumption we can usually rule on the basis of. You quote L9, but did East really know that further instructions from you would be forthcoming? Do we really place on East the responsibility to realise that the instruction from South is wrong and the duty to wait for a confirmation from you? Surely it is most likely East acted in good faith that South had acted in accordance with your instruction, unless we had very good reason to think otherwise.

In another case where East acted in accordance with South's instruction to East's own disadvantage (eg, East had a club and played it), would you be withdrawing East's card and making it a penalty card to East's (potentially) even greater disadvantage? I think the ruling has to be capable of dealing with both cases equitably.

[Vampyr]

iviehoff, on 2011-June-27, 02:27, said:

If West, having listened to what went on, picks up his penalty card and South makes no complaint, then I will not disturb it... if South complains I might think about making the other ruling.

I do not think that whether or not a player complains is a suitable basis upon which to make a ruling.

[iviehoff]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-27, 08:16, said:

I do not think that whether or not a player complains is a suitable basis upon which to make a ruling.

A representation from a player to a director is normally the precondition of any ruling.

[Vampyr]

iviehoff, on 2011-June-27, 08:36, said:

A representation from a player to a director is normally the precondition of any ruling.

Yes, but the representation has already been made in the OP -- the director is at the table. Now she should make the correct ruling and not change it (or decide about it in the first place) based on players' complaints.

[blackshoe]

The basis for any ruling is an assessment of the pertinent facts available in each case. That a player is complaining or has complained is not pertinent.

[iviehoff]

Of course in general you are right, if the TD is actually making a ruling. I'm trying to avoid making one, and that is why the existence of a complaint is relevant.

The present situation is that the TD turned up and made a ruling. Then a player on one side did something different from what the TD said, and a player on the other side complied before the TD could stop them. The players are now making it up as they are going along. When players on each side conspire to make up their own rulings, and so long as it is not apparent that one side is taking advantage of the other's ignorance of the ability of the TD to protect them, it seems plausible to let them get on with it. Especially when we recall that unwinding player-made rulings is usually a complicated mess. South's decision worked out badly from a bridge perspective, but from a laws perspective he got more than he was due; I'm happy to believe that South has not been taken advantage of unless there is some clear evidence of mischief by East. The TD presumably previously told them that the penalty card be picked up if South exercised his right. Let us leave them with that, unless they force us back in to rule again.

[bluejak]

gordontd, on 2011-June-27, 02:25, said:

As long as I did explain the options properly, I see no reason to be lenient with East: what he has led is not in accordance with the ruling, and nor is it in line with what his opponent has mistakenly asked him to do. If he knows the laws well enough to know that he can lead what he likes when he can't comply with a lead penalty, then he should also know them well enough to know that:

The problem seems to be that you are being lenient to East in letting him get away with it. If you are not going to be lenient to East then you do not allow him to tell his partner he has a void club by an illegal action.

[mgoetze]

iviehoff, on 2011-June-27, 09:34, said:

The present situation is that the TD turned up and made a ruling. Then a player on one side did something different from what the TD said, and a player on the other side complied

No, he did not, in fact could not, comply, as he had no clubs.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-June-27, 09:49, said:

The problem seems to be that you are being lenient to East in letting him get away with it. If you are not going to be lenient to East then you do not allow him to tell his partner he has a void club by an illegal action.

How is Gordon "letting him get away with it"? Did he suggest, in a post that I have somehow missed, that he would rule that East's club void is AI to West?

I think the main question here is whether East's heart is also a major penalty card; I suppose you would have had to be there to determine whether East was as confused as declarer as to what the legal options were.

[bluejak]

Is it not?

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-June-27, 10:22, said:

Is it not?

You mean AI? Of course it isn't, since East's play was illegal.

Or did you mean isn't the heart a penalty card? That I'm not sure about, since East was led astray by declarer. If he thought declarer was exercising a legal option, then he probably should not be punished.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2011-June-27, 09:49, said:

The problem seems to be that you are being lenient to East in letting him get away with it. If you are not going to be lenient to East then you do not allow him to tell his partner he has a void club by an illegal action.

I can't imagine what I said that gave you that idea. Would you care to quote it?