[Sjoerds]

Simple question.
Someone leads ♠A but his partner should lead.
TD explains the ruling and the leader chooses to leave the card open @ table under restriction of LAW50.
Is the information that partner possesses ♠A allowed for the offenders?

The setting: leader plays 7NT. With the start of ♠x this contract is down of course. But it is not that obvouis to start ♠x. And with any other lead 7NT is made.

[blackshoe]

The defender on lead is allowed to know that his partner must play his penalty card at the first legal opportunity. He is not allowed to know that card is the ♠A. So unless there is no LA to a spade lead, leader must choose a different lead. "I was always going to lead spades" won't cut it.

[jnichols]

 Sjoerds, on 2013-August-24, 12:21, said:

Simple question.
Someone leads ♠A but his partner should lead.
TD explains the ruling and the leader chooses to leave the card open @ table under restriction of LAW50.
Is the information that partner possesses ♠A allowed for the offenders?

The setting: leader plays 7NT. With the start of ♠x this contract is down of course. But it is not that obvouis to start ♠x. And with any other lead 7NT is made.

Why did declarer not forbid the lead of a ♠?

[Cyberyeti]

 jnichols, on 2013-August-24, 12:44, said:

Why did declarer not forbid the lead of a ♠?

Because there were only 13 on another lead because declarer could then run his long suit and force the A♠ to be discarded as a penalty card. If he prohibits a spade lead the card is picked up.

It appears you extract 2 penalties by leaving it on the table which is why I think this is unfair, you effectively prohibit a spade lead AND get the benefit of a penalty card.

[Sjoerds]

 blackshoe, on 2013-August-24, 12:43, said:

The defender on lead is allowed to know that his partner must play his penalty card at the first legal opportunity. He is not allowed to know that card is the ♠A. So unless there is no LA to a spade lead, leader must choose a different lead. "I was always going to lead spades" won't cut it.

Tx, that's what I thought. But we had a small discussion you guessed

[Sjoerds]

 jnichols, on 2013-August-24, 12:44, said:

Why did declarer not forbid the lead of a ♠?

That was actually what leader did. But that wasn't sufficient. Leaving the card @ table would have been successful. Offender had only one club and had to discard his ♠A after playing ♣AH.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2013-August-24, 12:43, said:

The defender on lead is allowed to know that his partner must play his penalty card at the first legal opportunity. He is not allowed to know that card is the ♠A. So unless there is no LA to a spade lead, leader must choose a different lead. "I was always going to lead spades" won't cut it.

There is a small inaccuracy here: Partner is not allowed to select a spade lead if he has other logical alternatives, but at the time he is about to play a spade (for instance by following suit) he may select which spade to play knowing that his partner must follow suit with the Ace.

[GreenMan]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-August-24, 13:09, said:

Because there were only 13 on another lead because declarer could then run his long suit and force the A♠ to be discarded as a penalty card. If he prohibits a spade lead the card is picked up.

Kantar wrote about a hand where this actually happened. Jim Linhart was the declarer. (In the story, the ♦A was exposed during the auction when East doubled 7♦ and slapped it on the table. Linhart then bid 7NT to right-side the penalty card.)

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2013-August-24, 14:17, said:

There is a small inaccuracy here: Partner is not allowed to select a spade lead if he has other logical alternatives, but at the time he is about to play a spade (for instance by following suit) he may select which spade to play knowing that his partner must follow suit with the Ace.

There is no inaccuracy. I was asked to address the situation where partner of the player with a MPC is on lead. I addressed that situation. I did not address any other situation.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2013-August-24, 19:07, said:

There is no inaccuracy. I was asked to address the situation where partner of the player with a MPC is on lead. I addressed that situation. I did not address any other situation.

You wrote: He is not allowed to know that card is the ♠A.

When he is on lead the situation is such that he may lead a spade then he is also allowed to know that the penalty card partner must play is the ♠A

[gombo121]

 blackshoe, on 2013-August-24, 12:43, said:

The defender on lead is allowed to know that his partner must play his penalty card at the first legal opportunity. He is not allowed to know that card is the ♠A.

Is it making any sense at all?!
The defender on lead knows that his partner must play something at every legal opportunity, so if his not allowed to know what the penalty card is, he is no different knowing or not knowing about the penalty card at all.

Besides, this is applying two penalties at once - not only the penalty card remains on the table (with requirement to be played at first opportunity, which is a HUGE advantage for declarer), you also effectively prohibited lead to this suit, because there is always some LA for the lead. And, BTW, prohibiting lead to the suit is completely separate option in the choice offered to declarer and it leaves no penalty card.
With such interpretation the penalty card become a killer option.

[pran]

 gombo121, on 2013-August-25, 04:59, said:

Is it making any sense at all?!
The defender on lead knows that his partner must play something at every legal opportunity, so if his not allowed to know what the penalty card is, he is no different knowing or not knowing about the penalty card at all.

Besides, this is applying two penalties at once - not only the penalty card remains on the table (with requirement to be played at first opportunity, which is a HUGE advantage for declarer), you also effectively prohibited lead to this suit, because there is always some LA for the lead. And, BTW, prohibiting lead to the suit is completely separate option in the choice offered to declarer and it leaves no penalty card.
With such interpretation the penalty card become a killer option.

An example of what definitely is UI in connection with a major penalty card is the fact that offender indended to play this card.

This leads to the correct rule that offender's partner may not lead a card in the suit of the penalty card (even if declarer refrains from any lead restriction) if he has any logical alternative(s) and such lead could be suggested by the fact that offender (apparently) intended the play that resulted in the penalty card.

However, I question any decision that knowledge of partner holding a particular card shall be unauthorized so long as the card is faced on the table.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps I should have said "leader is not permitted to take any inferences about his partner's hand from the fact that he now has a MPC which he tried to lead"?

If the contract is cold on the lead of any non-spade, and goes down if a spade is led, is there anyone here (gombo?) who would allow a spade lead?

[barmar]

Don't we already have two other threads that have been going for several days regarding the what partner of the player with the MPC is allowed to do?

http://www.bridgebas...crocodile-coup/
http://www.bridgebas...e-of-two-loots/

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2013-August-25, 11:27, said:

Perhaps I should have said "leader is not permitted to take any inferences about his partner's hand from the fact that he now has a MPC which he tried to lead"?

If the contract is cold on the lead of any non-spade, and goes down if a spade is led, is there anyone here (gombo?) who would allow a spade lead?

Sure yes if the offender during the auction has definitely called for a spade lead.

[Cyberyeti]

 blackshoe, on 2013-August-25, 11:27, said:

Perhaps I should have said "leader is not permitted to take any inferences about his partner's hand from the fact that he now has a MPC which he tried to lead"?

If the contract is cold on the lead of any non-spade, and goes down if a spade is led, is there anyone here (gombo?) who would allow a spade lead?

Yes, but the hand on lead would need to be J10987, xxx, xxx, xx with an auction where nobody considers anything else.

[lamford]

 Sjoerds, on 2013-August-24, 12:21, said:

Simple question.
Someone leads ♠A but his partner should lead.
TD explains the ruling and the leader chooses to leave the card open @ table under restriction of LAW50.
Is the information that partner possesses ♠A allowed for the offenders?

The setting: leader plays 7NT. With the start of ♠x this contract is down of course. But it is not that obvouis to start ♠x. And with any other lead 7NT is made.

I am amazed that anyone should think that there is any ambiguity in Law 50, especially as there has been a WBFLC minute about it.

[Cascade]

 lamford, on 2013-August-25, 16:17, said:

I am amazed that anyone should think that there is any ambiguity in Law 50, especially as there has been a WBFLC minute about it.

Is that because the minutes are so easy to find and well advertised?

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2013-August-25, 14:05, said:

Sure yes if the offender during the auction has definitely called for a spade lead.

<grumble> Quit changing the damn scenario! </grumble>

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2013-August-25, 20:00, said:

 pran, on 2013-August-25, 14:05, said:

Sure yes if the offender during the auction has definitely called for a spade lead.

<grumble> Quit changing the damn scenario! </grumble>

Changing the scenario????

We have not been told anything from the auction and I just pointed out one condition where a spade lead is permitted in spite of partner's MPC.

There is no automatic in Law 50 that the existence of MPC prevents partner from leading in that suit (as there is no automatic in Law 16 that the existence of UI prevents a player from selecting an action that "could be suggested by the UI").

The Director must always investigate if the player in question has other (relevant) alternative actions.