[jallerton]

---

Matchpoints.

I was North on the auction above.

As soon as the final pass had been made, South led and faced ♦K.

The TD was called and she explained the options available to West. West elected to accept the opening lead, table her hand, and make East declarer.

As North, I had an inference that would not normally have been available from my partner's choice of opening lead. Partner had not led my suit at trick one. It wasn't a case of him having too many hearts (as he had failed to raise), so he was very likely to be void in hearts.

If East had been the first person to bid spades, then my correct defence would be to win ♦A on the first or second round and then switch to a low heart, awaiting making ♥HAQ in due course.

Am I allowed to take advantage of this inference after the lead out of turn?

If I do win ♦A and switch to a low heart, should the TD adjust the score?

Please give Law references when answering.

[pran]

Law 16A1 said:

A player may use information in the auction or play if:
(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or
[...]

(My enhancement)

I see no reason for ruling any UI against you here?

If West had requested a correct opening lead from you instead of accepting the OLOOT then the fact that South had the DK and wanted to lead this rather than leading your suit would be UI to you. Consequently you should in that case not be allowed to assume that South was void in Hearts and play accordingly.

[weejonnie]

pran, on 2019-April-26, 11:42, said:

(My enhancement)

I see no reason for ruling any UI against you here?

If West had requested a correct opening lead from you instead of accepting the OLOOT then the fact that South had the DK and wanted to lead this rather than leading your suit would be UI to you. Consequently you should in that case not be allowed to assume that South was void in Hearts and play accordingly.

Well it depends on what West requested. If he said "Make your normal lead", then you can make use of the information derived from the penalty card whilst on the table as per 50E1- although 50E4 kicks in. If he said "Lead a club" or 'Don't lead a diamond' then the information vanishes when the penalty card is returned from the hand and you can't make use of the fact that the card suggests that partner is void - until there is compelling evidence otherwise or you have to play for it as the only chance to defeat a contract, for instance, at IMPS.

[HardVector]

The penalty from a lead out of turn comes immediately. They get to determine if they like the lead or not, and can then bar you from leading the suit if they wish to correct the lead. Once that penalty is assessed, that's it. You can do what you want.

[Vampyr]

HardVector, on 2019-April-26, 17:40, said:

The penalty from a lead out of turn comes immediately. They get to determine if they like the lead or not, and can then bar you from leading the suit if they wish to correct the lead. Once that penalty is assessed, that's it. You can do what you want.

Not quite. The options for declarer number fickle, not 2, and you can’t “do what you want”, ever, when you are constrained by UI.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2019-April-26, 22:19, said:

Not quite. The options for declarer number fickle, not 2, and you can’t “do what you want”, ever, when you are constrained by UI.

Presumed Declarer has five distinct options after an opening lead out of turn (Any qualified Director should know these by heart):
1: He may accept the opening lead as a correct lead and
a: decide to become the declarer
b: decide to become the dummy
2: He may reject the opening lead which then becomes a major penalty card and demand a correct lead
a: in the denomination of the penalty card
b: in a denomination different from that of the penalty card
c: without any restriction of denomination

In this case West selected option 1b - end of story

Had he selected any of the options 2a, 2b or 2C then North would have been restricted by UI.

[pescetom]

pran, on 2019-April-27, 01:08, said:

Presumed Declarer has five distinct options after an opening lead out of turn (Any qualified Director should know these by heart):
1: He may accept the opening lead as a correct lead and
a: decide to become the declarer
b: decide to become the dummy
2: He may reject the opening lead which then becomes a major penalty card and demand a correct lead
a: in the denomination of the penalty card
b: in a denomination different from that of the penalty card
c: without any restriction of denomination

In this case West selected option 1b - end of story

Had he selected any of the options 2a, 2b or 2C then North would have been restricted by UI.

If I understood correctly, weejonnie does not agree with you in the case 2c.

[pran]

pescetom, on 2019-April-27, 02:13, said:

If I understood correctly, weejonnie does not agree with you in the case 2c.

In case 2c the OLOOT remains a major penalty card and the selection between 2a, 2b and 2c applies each time offender's partner has or obtains the lead. See Law 50D.
(And see Law 50E on the question of UI)

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2019-April-27, 01:08, said:

Presumed Declarer has five distinct options after an opening lead out of turn (Any qualified Director should know these by heart):
1: He may accept the opening lead as a correct lead and
a: decide to become the declarer
b: decide to become the dummy
2: He may reject the opening lead which then becomes a major penalty card and demand a correct lead
a: in the denomination of the penalty card
b: in a denomination different from that of the penalty card
c: without any restriction of denomination

Yes, giving these options without the book is part of the EBU’s Club Director course.

Quote

In this case West selected option 1b - end of story

Not exactly. Because leader’s partner has the information that partner is extremely likely to have a heart void. The UI arises from the fact that partner did not lead a heart.

Quote

Had he selected any of the options 2a, 2b or 2C then North would have been restricted by UI.

And 1a.

[weejonnie]

I was detailing the consequences of rejecting the opening lead with the penalty card on (or not on) the table as a result, not necessarily disagreeing. The ability to quote and understand the options after an OLOOT are (or were) a requirement to pass an EBU club director course.

In the scenario given (change of declarer) I don't think there is UI. The UI (partner did not lead my suit) is exactly equivalent to the AI (partner did not lead my suit).

In 'Why you lose at bridge' one of the hands in the final rubber includes one of the protagonists (Mrs Guggenheim) eagerly asking if it were her lead against 6NT (holding AK of a suit). Once the matter is sorted out The Unlucky Expert has to work out what suit she wanted to lead. His impeccable (but wrong) logic suggests one suit, so he deliberately leads another - which happens to be the right one.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2019-April-27, 09:29, said:

And 1a.

Did you miss this part of my post #2?

Quote

A player may use information in the auction or play if:
(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2019-April-27, 11:14, said:

Did you miss this part of my post #2?

No, I didn’t miss it, but it seems to cause a huge problem. Director will need to explain to the correct declarer that if he accepts the lead, the correct opening later will be able to work out that his partner is a void in Hearts, and if you reject it, that information will be unauthorised to the correct opening leader. This is ludicrous, so I am not sure that a case like this should not be an exception.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2019-April-27, 19:02, said:

No, I didn’t miss it, but it seems to cause a huge problem. Director will need to explain to the correct declarer that if he accepts the lead, the correct opening later will be able to work out that his partner is a void in Hearts, and if you reject it, that information will be unauthorised to the correct opening leader. This is ludicrous, so I am not sure that a case like this should not be an exception.

Director shouldn't explain something as specific as "he'll likely assume that his partner is void in hearts." He should just explain that if he rejects the lead, the attempted opening lead becomes UI to North. Declarer needs to work out for themselves what inferences North might have made from the original lead, which now become illegal, and make his decision accordingly.

Then if the lead is rejected, the TD may need to assess whether North took action that was demonstrably suggested by the UI.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2019-April-27, 21:14, said:

Director shouldn't explain something as specific as "he'll likely assume that his partner is void in hearts." He should just explain that if he rejects the lead, the attempted opening lead becomes UI to North. Declarer needs to work out for themselves what inferences North might have made from the original lead, which now become illegal, and make his decision accordingly.

Then if the lead is rejected, the TD may need to assess whether North took action that was demonstrably suggested by the UI.

Will all declarer be able to work this out? Weak declarers who are discombobulated by the irregularity and the choices presented to them? This seems to be another case where weak players will suffer.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2019-April-27, 21:35, said:

Will all declarer be able to work this out? Weak declarers who are discombobulated by the irregularity and the choices presented to them? This seems to be another case where weak players will suffer.

It seems to me that the laws, with few exceptions, treat all players equally, not considering whether a player is "weak". This may or may not be a bad thing, but if it is, we're stuck with it until someone convinces the lawmakers to change it.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2019-April-27, 21:35, said:

Will all declarer be able to work this out? Weak declarers who are discombobulated by the irregularity and the choices presented to them? This seems to be another case where weak players will suffer.

It shouldn't be too difficult for the Director to say that if presumed declarer accepts the OLOOT then that lead will be treated as a completely legal lead.
He should already have said that if the OLOOT is not accepted then that lead will become a major penalty card.

I see no problem here (unless the Director is unqualified)?

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2019-April-28, 01:04, said:

It shouldn't be too difficult for the Director to say that if presumed declarer accepts the OLOOT then that lead will be treated as a completely legal lead.
He should already have said that if the OLOOT is not accepted then that lead will become a major penalty card.

But the declarer may well not understand the UI implications.

Quote

I see no problem here (unless the Director is unqualified)?

The North London Club has 5 qualified county directors and about 10 more club directors. There are also a few who have not attended a course but have learnt through experience. But what should a less well-endowed club do? Rely on the same two or three people every time? Raise the entry fees and hire a non-playing director? So, although this is totally off-topic, yes there are games run by unqualified directors, and this situation will continue.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2019-April-27, 21:35, said:

Will all declarer be able to work this out? Weak declarers who are discombobulated by the irregularity and the choices presented to them? This seems to be another case where weak players will suffer.

I'm not sure what we can do about this. Directors shouldn't be giving players advice about strategy, no matter their expertise level. You tell them the rules, they have to work everything else out themselves.

There are stories about directors advising players to accept a lead out of turn, based on the idea "If they don't know whose lead it is, they probably don't know what's best to lead"; I hope these are apocryphal (not to mention that the idea may be totally wrong -- perhaps they were eager to lead because they held what would be the killing lead if you hadn't right-sided the contract).

Weak players suffer in general. But we don't want to change the rules to coddle them, do we?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2019-April-29, 10:00, said:

Weak players suffer in general. But we don't want to change the rules to coddle them, do we?

Some do, I think. Hopefully they’ll remain few and without power.

[lamford]

I have not read the other posts, so sorry if I am duplicating what others have written, but I have just read the interesting OP today.

I think the lack of a heart lead is UI, but, for example, the fact that South has the queen of diamonds is AI.

16A1a says it is AI if <snip> "it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source". Here I think it is affected by unauthorized information from the LOOT that South does not have any hearts.

If that fails, then one can fall back on 73C. South could have been aware that leading the king of diamonds out of turn AND giving the information that he chose not to lead his partner's suit could well damage the non-offending side

Both routes lead to an adjustment if North does give his partner a heart ruff, unless there is no LA.