Underleading AK after OLOOT meaning of 50E
#1
Posted 2014-October-17, 03:58
Declarer went one off in the end. It turns out West had QJ doubleton and on the natural lead of SA the contract might end up making if North continued with SK and another so that South ruffs, as declarer would then be practically forced into dropping the DQ later on. It might also make if North continued with a small one to the J (the more likely continuation), but I'm not sure - dummy had four spades to the ten, but not many entries.
My understanding is that while North can know that South must play the penalty card rather than anything else if spades are led (50E1), the fact the penalty card is specifically the SQ is unauthorized under 50E2. Is that correct? Would you adjust the score to 3D=? (We did have a huge thread on this recently but I can't remember what conclusion we came to.)
ahydra
#2
Posted 2014-October-17, 05:02
50E3 said:
#3
Posted 2014-October-17, 06:39
campboy, on 2014-October-17, 05:02, said:
There indeed seems to be.
The knowledge that South must play the SQ at his first legal time to play this card is AI, but the fact that he has the SQ and intended to make an opening lead with this card is UI to North.
Only if North has no logical alternative other than to leading a spade (of any rank) to trick one may he lead a spade in this situation (and only in that case may he lead a low spade).
#4
Posted 2014-October-17, 08:59
#5
Posted 2014-October-17, 09:16
barmar, on 2014-October-17, 08:59, said:
He mentioned afterwards that he thought I had values in spades (not sure why though given I'd only bid hearts )
ahydra
#6
Posted 2014-October-17, 09:41
pran, on 2014-October-17, 06:39, said:
The knowledge that South must play the SQ at his first legal time to play this card is AI, but the fact that he has the SQ and intended to make an opening lead with this card is UI to North.
Only if North has no logical alternative other than to leading a spade (of any rank) to trick one may he lead a spade in this situation (and only in that case may he lead a low spade).
With respect to the statement about logical alternatives... Suppose South held singleton ♠Q and North held ♠KJxxx. Maybe based on the auction and the rest of South's hand, he wanted to lead his singleton to get a ruff, and he makes this OLOOT... West makes ♠Q a penalty card... It is now AI to North that his partner's card fills in his tenace and he can underlead his spade honors, whereas he might have led from ♦QJT9 otherwise. This could be where director adjusts the score, but North has done nothing wrong in using the AI.
#7
Posted 2014-October-17, 11:52
Having said that, you are allowed to know that the ♠Q fills in the tenace, but not that partner has that card or wanted to lead it. So the fact that almost certainly it's singleton or doubleton is UI, *as is the fact that your spades are 1-loser*. So, yes, if as a result of seeing that card, you lead a spade rather than ♦QJT9, that's use of UI and adjustable. What is AI, and not adjustable, is "he can underlead his spade honours" - but only *after* determining that there is no Logical Alternative to a spade lead.
#8
Posted 2014-October-17, 11:57
barmar, on 2014-October-17, 08:59, said:
NO !
So long as the (major) penalty card is faced (and not yet played) the information that offender must play this card at his first legal opportunity is AI to offender's partner.
Any other information that can be derived from the existence of the penalty card is UI to him.
This implies that when offender's partner must play, or legally (see below) has selected to play, a card in the denomination of the penalty card he may select which of his cards in that suit to play from the knowledge that offender must eventually play his penalty card to the trick.
But whenever offender's partner has a choice between suits for a lead or discard he may not use any information from the existence of the penalty card when selecting one suit over another alternative suit.
(added: Note also that once a penalty card for whatever reason has been restored to offender's hand the knowledge that offender has this card is no longer AI to his partner.)
#9
Posted 2014-October-17, 16:46
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
#10
Posted 2014-October-18, 01:34
pran, on 2014-October-17, 06:39, said:
Yes, I agree. When I said "presumably a spade lead was clear" what I really meant was "it sounds likely there was no LA to leading a spade, and assuming that was the case...". Of course we'd need to see the full hand to be sure, but knowing OP I'd expect him to be aware of this and have mentioned other plausible leads if there were any.
#11
Posted 2014-October-18, 01:55
campboy, on 2014-October-18, 01:34, said:
He may lead a spade, but he must not lead a low spade unless there is no LA. Holding AK there is obviously a LA.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
#12
Posted 2014-October-18, 02:34
pran, on 2014-October-17, 06:39, said:
The knowledge that South must play the SQ at his first legal time to play this card is AI, but the fact that he has the SQ and intended to make an opening lead with this card is UI to North.
Only if North has no logical alternative other than to leading a spade (of any rank) to trick one may he lead a spade in this situation (and only in that case may he lead a low spade).
I agree with your second paragraph (which follows from the wording of Law 50E), but I struggle to understand the legal basis for the conclusion stated in your third paragraph (even though most other replies agree with what you saying).
Suppose, for example, that North holds ♠AK62 ♥J1098 ♦862 ♣84 against the auction 1♦-P-3♦-All Pass
As North my choice of leads in order of preference might be: top spade, heart, trump, club, low spade. It's debatable how many of this leads constitute logical alternatives, but I'm sure that a low spade (my last choice of lead) is not one of them.
Law 50 said:
1. Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players.
2. Other information derived from sight of a penalty card is unauthorized for the partner of the player who has the penalty card (but authorized for declarer).
It seems to me that there are two possible interpretations here:
(a) If "Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card" means that I am allowed to know partner has ♠Q then I can lead whatever I like; or
(b) If "Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card" does not include allowing me to know partner has ♠Q then I must 'carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI' (Law 73C) and 'may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information' (Law 16B). In this case Law 73C tells me that I must not lead a low spade.
Whichever of (a) and (b) is supposed to apply, I can't see the relevance of whether or a not a top spade lead is the only logical alternative.
#13
Posted 2014-October-18, 02:54
jallerton, on 2014-October-18, 02:34, said:
(a) If "Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card" means that I am allowed to know partner has ♠Q then I can lead whatever I like; or
(b) If "Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card" does not include allowing me to know partner has ♠Q then I must 'carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI' (Law 73C) and 'may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information' (Law 16B). In this case Law 73C tells me that I must not lead a low spade.
Whichever of (a) and (b) is supposed to apply, I can't see the relevance of whether or a not a top spade lead is the only logical alternative.
I agree. The problem is that the Lawmakers have produced two clauses which are incompatible, because they do not want to force defenders to crash honours when the only LA is to do so. If they just had "A penalty card is UI" then there would be no problem. In the current situation they have to fall back on a catch-all clause when defenders avoid crashing honours which they might otherwise have done.
#14
Posted 2014-October-18, 03:58
Only if the player has no LA other than leading a spade may he lead a spade even when this could be suggested by seeing the faced penalty card.
But once leading a spade is his only choice then he is free to lead (or play) a low spade from AKxx because knowing that partner must play his Queen is AI to him.
#15
Posted 2014-October-18, 11:10
#16
Posted 2014-October-18, 13:15
pran, on 2014-October-18, 03:58, said:
Only if the player has no LA other than leading a spade may he lead a spade even when this could be suggested by seeing the faced penalty card.
But once leading a spade is his only choice then he is free to lead (or play) a low spade from AKxx because knowing that partner must play his Queen is AI to him.
jallerton, on 2014-October-18, 11:10, said:
Because Law 73C is irrelevant here since Law 50E is more specific for the situation and
Law 50 E 1 said:
So once the player has legally chosen to play a spade then he is free to select which of his own spades to play knowing that his partner must play the Queen.
But this knowledge does not itself authorize him in the first place to choose leading a spade when he has other logical alternatives available.
#17
Posted 2014-October-19, 01:22
pran, on 2014-October-17, 11:57, said:
So long as the (major) penalty card is faced (and not yet played) the information that offender must play this card at his first legal opportunity is AI to offender's partner.
Any other information that can be derived from the existence of the penalty card is UI to him.
I don't see how that addresses my question? I didn't ask anything about AI and UI. My point was that declarer could have prohibited a spade lead entirely, thus preventing any problem.
#18
Posted 2014-October-19, 02:25
barmar, on 2014-October-17, 08:59, said:
pran, on 2014-October-17, 11:57, said:
So long as the (major) penalty card is faced (and not yet played) the information that offender must play this card at his first legal opportunity is AI to offender's partner.
Any other information that can be derived from the existence of the penalty card is UI to him.
This implies that when offender's partner must play, or legally (see below) has selected to play, a card in the denomination of the penalty card he may select which of his cards in that suit to play from the knowledge that offender must eventually play his penalty card to the trick.
But whenever offender's partner has a choice between suits for a lead or discard he may not use any information from the existence of the penalty card when selecting one suit over another alternative suit.
(added: Note also that once a penalty card for whatever reason has been restored to offender's hand the knowledge that offender has this card is no longer AI to his partner.)
barmar, on 2014-October-19, 01:22, said:
So what?
Declarer did not prohibit a spade lead at this time so the penalty card remained a penalty card with all the consequences from Law 50 (and in particular Law 50 E) in force.
It is true that declarer could have explicitly prohibited a spade lead, but when he did not then a spade lead is still not permissible if it "could be suggested over another logical alternative" by the UI available from the existence of the penalty card.
#19
Posted 2014-October-19, 06:35
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#20
Posted 2014-October-19, 10:50
blackshoe, on 2014-October-19, 06:35, said:
No - the declarer can make the 'wrong' choice. He only gets redress if "the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side" - which is different. If declarer demands a Spade lead and it turns out that the Spade lead is the only one that cuts communication for a squeeze then no redress is available, nor desirable.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.