Recent Posts

Nice kitties!

It had to happen sooner or later. David's right, I had forgotten about Law 10C4.

Thanks for the compliment though, David.  

[authorised.]

It is well known that I rarely disagree with Ed, for the simple reason is that he is very good in the area of Laws, but I think he is wrong here.

Ok, let us go through it again.  Lead out of turn, declarer chooses an option, LHO cannot, Law 59 applies.  The idea of the TD giving declarer a second choice is pretty amazing!!!!!! 

Now there is no penalty card any more.  RHO gets on lead.  How does he know partner is void of clubs?  Correct: from the TD's ruling, and that is ruling is authorised.

Aha, I hear you say, but this all comes from the original infraction.  True!    Time to read Law 10C4.

Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50).

Sorry guys, Your explanation does not seem fair to me.

If West plays any other suit, it would be obvious to East that his partner (West) does not have any clubs, and so, after cashing his Ace of D, returns a club, knowing full well that West is going to 'ruff' his club lead. This seems to me to give an unfair advantage to E/W (who are, in fact, the offenders.
Can the Director apply Law 50E3 in this situation?
If not, then I think the "Law is an Ass" 

Sorry, behley, we just interpret and apply the Laws.  If you do not think it is fair, you can always write to the WBFLC and say so, but you still have to follow the Laws.  It is a fact that every so often there will be unlooked-for conclusions that seem to benefit the offending side.  But assuming the Law is an ass because of a specific case is usually just an over-simplification.

I never understand why but there are always some things which seem to push other people's buttons for no apparent reason.  When weak twos first came in England they were limited to a five point range.  Eventually that disappeared, and some people played 3-11 or whatever.  That would get a furious comment of "you can't", a call for the Director, and really cross words.  If the Director were to say "What difference did it make?" there would be no sensible answer.

Recently a few people decided they did not like transfer openings, and after being legal for a few years they are now banned in normal events.  Goodness knows why.  So you are allowed to play a 1C opening showing either

• clubs, or
• 4441, or
• a balanced hand, or
• any 16+

but you cannot play a 1H opening to show five spades.  Amazing! 

It sounds to me as though you are suffering from this syndrome with your opening 1NT bids: who cares what they are?  If you are not going to have announcements [which work brilliantly, by the way] anyone who needs to know should just ask - but why do they need to know?  What difference does it make to an ordinary club player whether it can contain a six-card minor or not?

And the fuss if you allow a singleton!   

My wife is called Liz.  My favourite partner is called Liz [in case of accidents].  My wife refers to my favourite partner as my girlfriend - I would never dare to!

We have also just acquired two Siamese kittens called Nemo and Nico.

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2052733&id=1064931144&l=4289c773ad

The law is sometimes an ass, but despite Samuel Adams, we cannot ignore it.

When West was asked to lead a club, having none, the director should have referred to Law 59, which allows West to lead any legal card (South doesn't get another choice). East still gets to pick up the C8, which is no longer a penalty card because South chose to ask for a club lead (Law 50D2a).

West leads a diamond, taken by East, who may now wish to lead back a club. But East's knowledge that West has no clubs derives from East's irregularity, so it is UI to East. If East has an LA to a club lead, he may not lead a club (Law 16 something, I don't have time to look it up). So we need to see East's hand.

Law 50E3 does not, it seem to me, apply.

Behley, you are correct with the points you made. But Law 50E1 does state that knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorised information for all players, therefore East is allowed to surmise that West is void in clubs (by leading another suit) and so is permitted to give him a ruff.

However, Law 50E3 can then allow an adjusted score to be awarded because in this particular situation, the penalty card (and West's failure to lead a club as directed) did damage the non-offending side. It might seem silly that 50E3 sets aside 50E1 but East won't always have the Ace of diamonds and East won't always give West a ruff.

Sorry guys, Your explanation does not seem fair to me.

If West plays any other suit, it would be obvious to East that his partner (West) does not have any clubs.
and so, after cashing his Ace of D, returns a club, knowing full well that West is going to 'ruff' his club lead. This seems to me to give an unfair advantage to E/W (who are, in fact, the offenders.
Can the Director apply Law 50E3 in this situation?
If not, then I think the "Law is an Ass"  

I agree with Chris, once West couldn't lead a club he could lead any card in is hand. Had he done so (without consulting the TD and he in turn South) the club 8 could have been picked up by East. Now, on the diamond lead, East could have won the Ace and returned the club 8 for West to ruff and now South would have no cause to ask for an adjusted score in the case of a bad score as knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorised information for all players.

The TD should not have looked at West's hand nor inform South of the club void (UI) but allow West to play any card (Law 57B) and, if later found to have held a club in his hand, award an adjusted score.

I'm assuming it was South (Declarer) who asked for the club lead from West. I would have thought that now East can pick up the club 8 (Law 50D2a) and West leads whatever he likes as he does not hold a club (Law 59).