[akwoo]

A player makes an opening lead (say of a spade) out of turn. Declarer chooses to require the lead of a spade from the player who is supposed to be on lead.

The player who is supposed to be on lead has no spades, so by Law 59, they may lead whatever they wish.

Is the fact that they have no spades UI or AI to their partner? To declarer?

I assume the answer will also apply to any (other) lead requirement from a penalty card?

[Cyberyeti]

I don't know if the laws have changed, but remember this from an old book. I believe there was no UI then.

At the time declarer was in 4♠ and had ♣K10x, his RHO led Q♦ out of turn and he was told that he could demand the lead of any suit. He asked for a club.

"I have no clubs" "then you may do what you like" said the director. What he liked was to underlead the ♦AK, won by his partner's J and they took the first 4 tricks with 2 diamonds and 2 ruffs.

[sanst]

From what I raad in the Commentary on the Laws (http://www.worldbrid...sCommentary.pdf) and the Compendium on Relevant WBFLC Decisions (http://www.worldbrid...s_1998-2019.pdf) I gather that the information arising from the irregularity is UI for the offending side.

[jillybean]

UI to OS
AI to NOS

[jillybean]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-March-13, 02:57, said:

I don't know if the laws have changed, but remember this from an old book. I believe there was no UI then.

At the time declarer was in 4♠ and had ♣K10x, his RHO led Q♦ out of turn and he was told that he could demand the lead of any suit. He asked for a club.

"I have no clubs" "then you may do what you like" said the director. What he liked was to underlead the ♦AK, won by his partner's J and they took the first 4 tricks with 2 diamonds and 2 ruffs.

The Director then adjusted the board at the end of the hand? Law12

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment 1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

[axman]

sanst, on 2025-March-13, 04:15, said:

From what I raad in the Commentary on the Laws (http://www.worldbrid...sCommentary.pdf) and the Compendium on Relevant WBFLC Decisions (http://www.worldbrid...s_1998-2019.pdf) I gather that the information arising from the irregularity is UI for the offending side.

I don't find the commentary very helpful. The law seems to make a distinction between information arising from an irregularity and that arising from an opponent. Suggesting that when an opponent creates information by exercising a penalty option then L16 doesn't attach.

I think it imperative for crafters of law to be diligent that their remedies are in fact remedies.

[barmar]

I also don't see where these commentaries provide specific guidance.

IMHO, leading the suit required by declarer is analogous to following suit in normal tricks. So if LOOTer's partner doesn't follow the requirement, it's AI to both sides that they don't have any cards in that suit.

I think the chain of events "infraction -> declarer exercises option -> player doesn't comply -> information about why they couldn't comply" is long and indirect enough that I wouldn't consider it to be "information arising from its own withdrawn action" in the words of 16C2. Contrast it with identity of the penalty card, which directly comes from the withdrawn play.

[mycroft]

I asked a similar (with warnings that "similar != same") question in Toronto of the National TDs I was working with:

"Partner leads out of turn. Declarer refuses the lead and refuses the lead of that suit from me. Am I allowed to use the information that Declarer doesn't want that suit led?"

And the answer was "Yes", as it's information that declarer gave you, not information derived from a penalty card that was (by declarer's decision) returned to hand (50E2).

Still not comfortable with that, but that was the immediate and universal response, with comments that this had come up and had been discussed before.

I would argue that the original question is even more obviously "Yes", because it is "arising from the legal procedures authorized in the laws" (16A1c, second part).

But I would really like it to be clear that both of these bits of information are actually "information arising from [their] withdrawn action" (16C2) and that supersedes "knowing how the Laws work is always AI". I don't think it is (clear), and I'm not sure it is (superseded).

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2025-March-13, 07:22, said:

The law seems to make a distinction between information arising from an irregularity and that arising from an opponent.

The distinction is between information coming from partner and information arising from some other source.

16A1 defines what information is authorized.

[barmar]

Another way to look at this is that partner shouldn't be able to deliberately transmit information to you other than through the means in 16A1. But not leading a suit they don't hold is not a deliberate choice, it's forced on them.

On the other hand, suppose you want to know if partner is has any spades. So you lead a spade out of turn, and hope that declarer chooses to require a spade lead. It seems like this shouldn't be allowed. But we don't really need to use Law 16 to prohibit this, it's already prohibited by the law that says you're not allowed to deliberately violate a law even if you're willing to accept the penalty.