[lamford]

---

Multiple Teams; Opening lead ♣6; Table Result 3NTxx+3 NS+2200.

The North London club had a post-covid trial of live play this week and all went reasonably smoothly until this board. Colin the Corgi, West, one of the club's brightest but most impetuous young stars, partnered Charlie the Chimp, East. ChCh was pretty confident that CC would work out that he wanted a club lead, as he had not opened a weak two, but to make assurance double sure, as the bard said, he took the full ten seconds allowed before doubling. Just as SB was beginning to regret his aggressive jump to game, probably inexcusable with the rabbit, CC led the six of clubs. "DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR" bellowed SB, North, and Oscar the Owl came running. "How can I help?" OO, asked patiently.

"Opening lead by West during the auction," SB began. "My final pass had not left the bidding box". "No real problem," replied OO, although he almost guessed what was going to happen. SB now redoubled. "OK, that means that your partner is silenced, CC, and if you become a defender there will be further penalties; and the fact that SB originally selected pass is UI to RR". Everyone passed, and now SB did OO's job for him.

"This is an interesting one, and the laws are pretty sloppy on a card led during the auction", began SB.
A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (see Law 49 and Law 72C may apply).

"I think that you will find Law 57 applies, for a card prematurely led; indeed Law 50 tells the TD to go to law 57 in such cases:
A. Premature Play or Lead to Next Trick
When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn before his partner has played, the card so led or played becomes a major penalty card, and declarer selects one of the following options. He may:
1. require offender’s partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led, or
2. require offender’s partner to play the lowest card he holds of the suit led, or
3. require offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer, or
4. forbid offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer."

SB paused for breath and a glass of water, and stopped to use the hand sanitiser after his Gettysburg-style address

"I have told you many times not to make rulings for me, SB, and you will be fined 3 IMPs for this one." responded OO, "but you are right." He continued, facing RR, "Which of the four options will you choose, RR, and you can't get ChCh to revoke?".

"I guess I will ask him to play his lowest club," responded RR, "but I don't think it is going to matter, "This looks a dreadful contract". ""Why did you redouble with only 7 points, SB?"

ChCh, East, had to contribute the five of clubs, and RR won surprisingly with the seven. Now he took the diamond finesse, West playing nine, which was intended as a Smith Peter to show three clubs but ChCh thought was normal count. East ducked the first diamond and RR returned to hand with a spade, and wondered whether to repeat the diamond finesse but decided against it and ludicrously dropped East's king. West was forced to unguard spades in the ending to avoid the strip squeeze and RR emerged with 12 unexpected tricks for 3NTxx+3.

"You should know that score, it is 2200, RR" goaded SB, "a score you conceded when you left in my SOS redouble last week." "And it cannot make if CC leads the eight of clubs prematurely. The moral is that you should lead top of nothing if you are leading during the auction", he chortled.

"Is that ruling right, OO?" asked ChCh, "when North reached for the pass card, the auction had effectively ended. "I think technically it had not until it left the bidding box," responded OO, "there is UI from the change of call from Pass to Redouble, but I don't think RR used that, or any other I for that matter." He ended: "I think if North had then passed, I would have ruled that there was no penalty, as "precedent" is that the final pass is often not completed properly. But when SB redoubled, the auction was clearly live."

Do you agree with the ruling?

[jhenrikj]

No, law 24 applies, there is no reference to 57 in 24. The led club is a penalty card and has to be led (again).

[lamford]

 jhenrikj, on 2020-August-14, 14:14, said:

No, law 24 applies, there is no reference to 57 in 24. The led club is a penalty card and has to be led (again).

Indeed, as SB pointed out at the time, under Law 24, we all agree that the led club is a major penalty card:

LAW 24 - CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION
When the Director determines that during the auction, because of a player’s own error, one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be placed face up on the table until the auction ends. Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non-offending side but unauthorized for the offending side (see Law 16C).

However when we come to decide what happens to the major penalty card we find:
LAW 50 - DISPOSITION OF PENALTY CARD
A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (see Law 49 and Law 72C may apply).

As SB quoted verbatim and accurately. So, you would be right if it was prematurely exposed, but OO decided, as would anyone else, that it was led. Therefore we see Law 57.

[smerriman]

SB is incorrect. Since we are clearly distinguishing 'lead' from 'play' we need to ensure we satisfy the conditions of Law 57 precisely:

When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick

This is not the situation, because the 'current' trick is trick 1, and the 'next' trick is trick 2. West has not led to trick 2. Alternatively, the 'next' trick could be defined as trick 1, in which case the 'current' trick is undefined, so he definitely hasn't led 'before' it.

, or plays out of turn before his partner has played,

This not true because West has led, not played.

Therefore, everyone should sit at the table indefinitely until someone realises that it's obvious what the intent of the law was (namely, rule 57 is about what to do when your partner was meant to choose their card before you), and then they can get back to actually playing bridge.

[lamford]

 smerriman, on 2020-August-14, 22:06, said:

SB is incorrect. Since we are clearly distinguishing 'lead' from 'play' we need to ensure we satisfy the conditions of Law 57 precisely:

When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick

This is not the situation, because the 'current' trick is trick 1, and the 'next' trick is trick 2. West has not led to trick 2. Alternatively, the 'next' trick could be defined as trick 1, in which case the 'current' trick is undefined, so he definitely hasn't led 'before' it.

When CC led, during the auction, the next trick was trick 1. Clearly CC led. There is no current trick during the auction, therefore partner has not "played to the current trick" as there is not one. Therefore CC has led before that event, unless you think it was simultaneous with or after partner played to the current trick? You can say that his partner has not played to trick 0 if you wish.

The parenthetical note "(but not led, see Law 57)" directs the TD to apply Law 57 when the penalty card was led. You are the one who is trying to satisfy the conditions of Law 57 precisely. I believe the Law tells the TD how to dispose of a penalty card which arose from being led rather than played. It was not a lead out of turn, so we don't need to turn to Law 54. It is a penalty card as it was led during the auction, under Law 24. Law 50 tells us how to handle it, but we are told that for penalty cards which were led, we go to Law 57.

I can quite believe the Law is intended to be different. And their drafting leaves a huge amount to be desired. I am certain that if this ruling were dealt with in the Supreme Court, Law 57 would be applied.

[smerriman]

"A happened before B happened" is false if B has not and never will happen (because the definition is undefined), regardless of whether A happened.

If you believe the supreme court would rule that Law 57 would be applied, they would equally rule that Law 57 does not state what to do in this situation.

You clearly know what the law intended and are arguing for the same of semantics, so you have to be consistent and follow those semantics the whole way through.

[pran]

How does Law 57 enter this case?

The relevant law is of course (as everybody has realized) Law 24, but nobody seems to have realized that this law includes

.....
D. Declaring side
If the offender becomes declarer or dummy the cards are picked up and returned to the hand.
E. Defenders
If at the conclusion of the auction the offender is to become a defender, every such card becomes a penalty card (see Laws 50 and 51).

I shall not bother to elaborate further on such a clear law.

[smerriman]

 pran, on 2020-August-15, 04:20, said:

How does Law 57 enter this case?

The relevant law is of course (as everybody has realized) Law 24, but nobody seems to have realized that this law includes

.....
D. Declaring side
If the offender becomes declarer or dummy the cards are picked up and returned to the hand.
E. Defenders
If at the conclusion of the auction the offender is to become a defender, every such card becomes a penalty card (see Laws 50 and 51).

I shall not bother to elaborate further on such a clear law.

How is this relevant? D is totally irrelevant, since the offender did not become declarer or dummy. E is relevant in the the card becomes a penalty card; it tells you to refer to Law 50 for how that penalty card is used from that point forwards, which then theoretically tells to you refer to rule 57, even though it's obvious law 57 does not apply to this situation.here.

[lamford]

 smerriman, on 2020-August-15, 03:54, said:

"A happened before B happened" is false if B has not and never will happen (because the definition is undefined), regardless of whether A happened.

If you believe the supreme court would rule that Law 57 would be applied, they would equally rule that Law 57 does not state what to do in this situation.

You clearly know what the law intended and are arguing for the same of semantics, so you have to be consistent and follow those semantics the whole way through.

So, if the law said that "if the player led before the second coming of Christ", you would argue that was false, because the second coming of Christ has not and never will happen (in my opinion)?

Law 57 clearly says what happens if someone leads to a trick before they are supposed to lead to that trick, so the Supreme Court would apply that. At least that is how a friend who is a Professor of Law would interpret it.

And yes, I do know what they intended. But they screwed up. Yet again.

[lamford]

 smerriman, on 2020-August-15, 04:30, said:

<snip> ... it tells you to refer to Law 50 for how that penalty card is used from that point forwards, which then theoretically tells to you refer to rule 57, even though it's obvious law 57 does not apply to this situation.here.

Why is it obvious Law 57 does not apply when it says that it does?

And SB has also argued that if Law 57 is not applied, then East's enforced pass over the redouble damaged the non-offending side, in that it would be a logical alternative for East (were he not forced to pass and with the UI of the premature club lead) to pull 3NTxx to 4C and this is +500 to North-South as opposed to the -500 which would be the result if East were allowed to play any club. He argued that 72C applied and West "could have been aware that his premature lead would damage the non-offending side" in that it would have told ChCh that CC was on the same wavelength with regard to the double.

And, although he does not think it should be taken into account, SB thinks the second best and erroneous ruling under 72C was enough for his team to win the event on the evening, as +500 was a big gain against datum, as many Easts opened 3C and either South went off in 3NT or North made 3D on the nose.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2020-August-15, 04:55, said:

So, if the law said that "if the player led before the second coming of Christ", you would argue that was false, because the second coming of Christ has not and never will happen (in my opinion)?

Law 57 clearly says what happens if someone leads to a trick before they are supposed to lead to that trick, so the Supreme Court would apply that. At least that is how a friend who is a Professor of Law would interpret it.

And yes, I do know what they intended. But they screwed up. Yet again.

Law 24 said:

When the Director determines that during the auction, because of a player’s own error, one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be placed face up on the table until the auction ends.
.....

then we have

Law 24E said:

If at the conclusion of the auction the offender is to become a defender, every such card becomes a penalty card (see Laws 50 and 51).

Note that this (not earlier) is the moment when, and condition for the exposed card(s) to become penalty card(s).

Then unfortunately somebody may erroneously attempt to apply

Law 57A said:

Premature Play or Lead to Next Trick
When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn before his partner has played, the card so led or played becomes a major penalty card, and declarer selects one of the following options
.....

not noticing that this Law only applies after the play period has commenced as specified in Law 41. (The first trick is never a "next trick"!)
Instead any such premature play or lead is completely handled under Law 24 as a card exposed during the auction (at which time there is not yet any declarer or defender).

I don't know what you believe WBFLC intended, but I think it is an insult to state that they screwed up here. These laws are very simple and easy to handle.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2020-August-15, 06:53, said:

then we have
Note that this (not earlier) is the moment when, and condition for the exposed card(s) to become penalty card(s).

Then unfortunately somebody may erroneously attempt to apply
not noticing that this Law only applies after the play period has commenced as specified in Law 41. (The first trick is never a "next trick"!)
Instead any such premature play or lead is completely handled under Law 24 as a card exposed during the auction (at which time there is not yet any declarer or defender).

I don't know what you believe WBFLC intended, but I think it is an insult to state that they screwed up here. These laws are very simple and easy to handle.

Utter rubbish. Both Law 50 and 57 apply to penalty cards and clearly apply to the play period. One deals with cards not led, the other deals with cards led. We are told to use Law 57 because it was led, not exposed or dropped or a corrected revoke.

It is true that we don't know who would be declarer and if West, for example, had bid 4C in the pass-out seat, then there would have been no penalty card. When it transpired that West was a defender, he had a penalty card. How do we treat it. Firstly under Law 50, but then we are told as it was led, not exposed, to use Law 57. Simple and unambiguous.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2020-August-15, 07:42, said:

Utter rubbish. Both Law 50 and 57 apply to penalty cards and clearly apply to the play period. One deals with cards not led, the other deals with cards led.

Precisely, and the (alleged) premature lead here happened during the auction period, not during the play period. Therefore it was not even a lead, only a card exposed during the auction.

Law 57 clearly refers to premature lead to next trick, i.e. trick two or later, not to the very first trick (by a player who at that time would not even be a defender because we have not yet arrived at the play period.)

 lamford, on 2020-August-15, 07:42, said:

We are told to use Law 57 because it was led, not exposed or dropped or a corrected revoke.

Just to quote your own statement: "Utter rubbish" - the card was not led to the next trick so Law 57 does not apply here.

 lamford, on 2020-August-15, 07:42, said:

It is true that we don't know who would be declarer and if West, for example, had bid 4C in the pass-out seat, then there would have been no penalty card. When it transpired that West was a defender, he had a penalty card. How do we treat it. Firstly under Law 50, but then we are told as it was led, not exposed to use Law 57. Simple and unambiguous.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2020-August-15, 09:13, said:

Precisely, and the (alleged) premature lead here happened during the auction period, not during the play period. Therefore it was not even a lead, only a card exposed during the auction.

The heading of LAW 24 - CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION makes it clear that there are two types of penalty card, those that are exposed during the auction and those that are led. This was found by the TD to have been led. He was leading against 3NT doubled which he thought was the auction. A card led during the auction must be to an auction that has not finished, so it will always be the case the leader (or his partner) could become declarer. But the card was still led. And if no tricks have been played, the next trick is the first trick. Law 24 doesn't refer to the next trick, Law 57 does and that relates to the disposition of the penalty card during the play, when there is always a next trick, even if it is the first trick.

LAW 50 - DISPOSITION OF PENALTY CARD
A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (see Law 49 and Law 72C may apply).

If it is led, we see Law 57, which is what OO did. So he acted completely correctly.

I don't even need to read the rest of what your wrote and have deleted it as you fell at the first fence, like many a runner in the Grand National. And I don't intend to reply to anything else you write on this subject.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2020-August-15, 12:25, said:

The heading of LAW 24 - CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION makes it clear that there are two types of penalty card, those that are exposed during the auction and those that are led. This was found by the TD to have been led.

LAW 50 - DISPOSITION OF PENALTY CARD
A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (see Law 49 and Law 72C may apply).

If it is led, we see Law 57, which is what OO did. So he acted completely correctly.

I don't even need to read the rest of what your wrote and have deleted it as you fell at the first fence, like many a runner in the Grand National. And I don't intend to reply to anything else you write on this subject.

Law 24E said:

If at the conclusion of the auction the offender is to become a defender, every such card becomes a penalty card (see Laws 50 and 51).

The card is not a penalty card, it becomes a penalty card at the conclusion of the auction. (if the offender is to become a defender)

[smerriman]

If the law had said:

"When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, if one exists"

then sure.

But referring to "the current trick" is simply enough evidence for me that the current trick must exist before this rule can be applied, and must indeed differ from "the next trick".

[lamford]

 smerriman, on 2020-August-15, 14:54, said:

If the law had said:

"When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, if one exists"

then sure.

But referring to "the current trick" is simply enough evidence for me that the current trick must exist before this rule can be applied, and must indeed differ from "the next trick".

The Laws seem to have concatenated a card led prematurely during the play period and a card led during the auction; both become penalty cards and the TD is told to use Law 57. Once the director had turned to Law 57, as he has been instructed to do, he has to make the best of a poor wording, which intends to punish someone for leading before they are supposed to do so. The interpretation of Law 57, as with all Laws, is up to the TD. Your interpretation, that they were not supposed to attempt to apply Law 57 at all, is further removed than ruling that the defender has led to trick one before his partner has played to the previous trick. His partner has not played to the previous trick, because there was not one, but that is no excuse!

If someone, playing the ace and king of a side suit and giving their partner a ruff plays the third card before partner has completed his peter, then SB would swoop, even though the second card by partner is forced, and no advantage is gained and the ruff would be prevented. That is certainly less of an infraction than an opening lead during the auction which I think should be punished under Law 57 by the closest that the TD can get to achieving that. To say that Law 57 does not apply at all because there is no previous trick is wrong.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2020-August-15, 12:33, said:

The card is not a penalty card, it becomes a penalty card at the conclusion of the auction. (if the offender is to become a defender)

I don't intend to reply to anything else you write on this subject.

[smerriman]

 lamford, on 2020-August-14, 12:54, said:

Do you agree with the ruling?

Sorry, I didn't realise this was a rhetorical question and you weren't looking for actual answers.

Sure, in a legal sense the wording could be improved, but your ruling simply is not acceptable based on the wording in rule 57, whether that is 'more or less removed' than another option. You could argue that there is no possible ruling, and I wouldn't be able to disagree with you, but if I had to make one, I'd choose the one that was completely obviously the intention.

It's so obvious what is meant to happen here, it really is simply waste of time arguing otherwise - and to be honest, other than you, does anyone really care about this? I'd rather the rulemakers focus on things that actually matter.

[jhenrikj]

Lamford, pls explain to us how you apply 57 after a Loot?