🚀 go-pugleaf

Roger Gillard wrote:
>   My partner was on lead ... placed all his cards on the table
> as if he were dummy. It all happened too quickly we could not stop him!
>   Could you please tell me what the correct ruling was in this case? Our
> not so experienced director decided that my partner had 13 penalty cards
> and declarer could nominate which card was to be lead.

Now here's a how-do-ye-do...

I don't have my ACBL book handy, so this is off the top of my head.
Your partner does indeed have 13 penalty cards.  Given the circumstance
you describe, declarer now effectively gets to play your partner's hand.
To wit: when it is your partner's turn to play, and there are options as
to which card should be played (or led), declarer gets to make the choice.

When it is your turn to lead, my guess is more hazy.  I believe (and remember
I don't have my rulebook handy) on your first lead declarer may require or
forbid the lead of any suit in your partner's exposed stack.  That should
allow one card from that suit to go back into your partner's hand; as a matter
of practicality I'd dispense with that.  The require/forbid option, if I recall
correctly, only applies on your first time to lead, not on subsequent plays.

I'll be interested to see what a director with better memory says here...

In article <4po6mk$net@sol.ccs.deakin.edu.au>,
Roger Gillard <rgg@deakin.edu.au> wrote:
>
>I have a query for you gurus on the internet relating to a bizarre 
>happening that occurred when I was playing on a beginners night at our club.
>   My partner was on lead but must have believed that I was declarer and 
>that my left-hand opponent had made an opening lead, so he placed all his 
>cards on the table as if he were dummy. It all happened too quickly we could 
>not stop him!
>    Could you pleases tell me what the correct ruling was in this case? Our 
>not so experienced director decided that my partner had 13 penalty cards on 
>the table and declarer could nominate which card was to be lead. Was this 
>the correct ruling? And what should have happened when I was on lead and 10 
>cards were exposed in my partners hand? Could declarer require or forbid 
>the lead of any particular suit and would that mean that all or some of my 
>partners holding in that suit would no longer be penalty card/s??

I had something similar to this happen once. Partner (who would have been
the opening leader) put his hand down on the table to write down the
contract on his score card. Unfortunately he put them down face up and
clearly visible. A panel of experienced tournament directors decided
that this made the hand unplayable, and awarded the opponents +3 imps
on the board (it was in a Swiss match). I felt at the time that the
correct solution was really the "13 penalty card" answer, but that
would have let declarer make 13 tricks in her 4H contract instead 
of the obvious 10, so I didn't bother to argue.

If there are multiple penalty cards, the ruling is as you suggest,
except that declarer may prohibit the lead of more than one suit
(Law 512b) and the offender gets to pick up all cards in all named
suits. Of course, if declarer prohibits a lead in all four suits,
the game may slow down a bit.

                    Richard Lighton
                      (lighton@ios.com)
                         Wood-Ridge NJ

-- 
                  Richard Lighton
                    (lighton@ios.com)
                      Wood-Ridge NJ

Roger Gillard wrote:
> 
> My partner was on lead but must have believed that I was declarer and
> that my left-hand opponent had made an opening lead, so he placed all his
> cards on the table as if he were dummy.

You simply can not recover.  Throw out the board, give the
opponents an average plus and an average minus for yourself.

13 penalty cards is simply not bridge anymore and is not fun for
anyone involved.

Roger Gillard wrote: 

>I have a query for you gurus on the internet relating to a bizarre 
>happening that occurred when I was playing on a beginners night at our club.
>   My partner was on lead but must have believed that I was declarer and 
>that my left-hand opponent had made an opening lead, so he placed all his 
>cards on the table as if he were dummy. It all happened too quickly we could 
>not stop him!
>    Could you pleases tell me what the correct ruling was in this case? Our 
>not so experienced director decided that my partner had 13 penalty cards on 
>the table and declarer could nominate which card was to be lead. Was this 
>the correct ruling? And what should have happened when I was on lead and 10 
>cards were exposed in my partners hand? Could declarer require or forbid 
>the lead of any particular suit and would that mean that all or some of my 
>partners holding in that suit would no longer be penalty card/s??

  Rare and fairly complicated book rulings tend to get mishandled in one 
of two ways.
1) The TD does not read it from the Law book.  He should be shot.
2) The TD does read it from the Law book, but is not convinced.

  This is a straight book ruling and should be treated as such.  L50A 
says exposed cards are penalty cards: they are left face up on the table 
(L50B) and are all major (L50C).  L51 is all about "Two or more penalty 
cards".  L51A says that declarer may designate which one of the exposed 
cards is to be played whenever it was your partner's turn to play
(including the opening lead).

  When you got on lead, L51B applied.  Declarer can require any suit 
that is exposed to be led, or forbid one or more suits that are exposed 
as long as you retained the lead.  In all such suits referred to partner 
can now pick up his cards.  Suppose for argument's sake that your 
partner has spades, hearts and clubs still exposed, then declarer's 
options are
1) Require a S lead: partner picks his S's up
2) Similarly a H lead: or a C lead
3) Forbid a S lead: partner picks his S's up
4) Similarly a H lead: or a C lead
5) Forbid a S and a H lead: partner picks his S's and his H's up
6) Similarly a S and a C lead: or a H and a C lead
7) Forbid a S and a H and a C lead: partner picks all his cards up
8) Require or forbid nothing: all partner's cards remain down

  Any cards that partner has picked up are no longer penalty cards and 
declarer can no longer require them to be played when it is your 
partner's turn.


Richard Lighton wrote: 

>I had something similar to this happen once. Partner (who would have been
>the opening leader) put his hand down on the table to write down the
>contract on his score card. Unfortunately he put them down face up and
>clearly visible. A panel of experienced tournament directors decided
>that this made the hand unplayable, and awarded the opponents +3 imps
>on the board (it was in a Swiss match). I felt at the time that the
>correct solution was really the "13 penalty card" answer, but that
>would have let declarer make 13 tricks in her 4H contract instead 
>of the obvious 10, so I didn't bother to argue.
>
>If there are multiple penalty cards, the ruling is as you suggest,
>except that declarer may prohibit the lead of more than one suit
>(Law 512b) and the offender gets to pick up all cards in all named
>suits. Of course, if declarer prohibits a lead in all four suits,
>the game may slow down a bit.

  I was declarer when the opening leader put three of her four suits 
down on the table.  When the TD decided the board was unplayable I did 
not argue (cf BLML thread) but, according to my partner, I gave him such 
a vicious look that he shot off to his superior.  Of course, both sides 
now got a good score from the Director's Error Law, but I lost the fun 
of playing it!  I was not going to criticise a fellow TD, but I have not 
forgotten it!  He got it right when I put it into my next TD training 
session and I have forgiven him.



Richard A. Polunsky wrote: 

>Now here's a how-do-ye-do...
>
>I don't have my ACBL book handy, so this is off the top of my head.
>Your partner does indeed have 13 penalty cards.  Given the circumstance
>you describe, declarer now effectively gets to play your partner's hand.
>To wit: when it is your partner's turn to play, and there are options as
>to which card should be played (or led), declarer gets to make the choice.
>
>When it is your turn to lead, my guess is more hazy.  I believe (and remember
>I don't have my rulebook handy) on your first lead declarer may require or
>forbid the lead of any suit in your partner's exposed stack.  That should
>allow one card from that suit to go back into your partner's hand; as a matter
>of practicality I'd dispense with that.
  Why?
>  The require/forbid option, if I recall
>correctly, only applies on your first time to lead, not on subsequent plays.

  You don't, but there is a simple solution ...
>
>I'll be interested to see what a director with better memory says here...

  ... you don't use memory, you read it from the Law book!




Eric Taylor wrote: 

>You simply can not recover.  Throw out the board, give the
>opponents an average plus and an average minus for yourself.
>
>13 penalty cards is simply not bridge anymore and is not fun for
>anyone involved.

  Oh great!  Let's forget the Law book.  I know, following suit isn't 
fun, so let's revoke.

  There is a Law to cover Two or more penalty cards.  If it meant at 
least Two and no more than Six (say), it would say so.  Thirteen is Two 
or more, so apply the Law.

  Throwing out a board because a player thinks it is not fun is not 
Bridge: following the Laws is Bridge.  Furthermore, Mr Taylor, you may 
not find it fun to grapple with a strange position that you have never 
seen before but there are a lot of people who do not agree, so let's 
apply the Laws, shall we?


-- 
David Stevenson              Bridge   Cats   Railways   Logic    /\_/\
Liverpool, England, UK       Nothing ventured, nothing gained    |@ @|
david@blakjak.demon.co.uk    Emails welcome                     =< + >=
Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412     Phone before Fax please               ^ 

In article <31C044A4.7DC@tivoli.com> Eric Taylor <taylor@tivoli.com> writes:
>From: Eric Taylor <taylor@tivoli.com>
>Subject: Re: penalty cards galore
>Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:41:08 -0500

>Roger Gillard wrote:
>> 
>> My partner was on lead but must have believed that I was declarer and
>> that my left-hand opponent had made an opening lead, so he placed all his
>> cards on the table as if he were dummy.

>You simply can not recover.  Throw out the board, give the
>opponents an average plus and an average minus for yourself.

>13 penalty cards is simply not bridge anymore and is not fun for
>anyone involved.


Unfortunately, while this may be a reasonable view, it is not a view that has 
any basis in law.  Your partner does indeed have 13 penalty cards.  

Ray

riordan@mail.utexas.edu (Riordan) writes:
 > 
 >One publication from the ACBL listed bizarre happenings included:
 >
 >Competitive bidding reaching 4H - P - P,  TANK.
 >
 >Heart bidders thught bidding was over and exchanged hands.
 >
 >DIRECTOR.
 >
 >Heart bidders barred from bidding, 4S was bid knowing no doble was forthcoming.
 >26 penalty cards, making 10 tricks (sometimes there is nothing you can do
 >without the spots)
 >

In _Bridge Play Four Classics_, the late George Coffin presented a
hand in which N-S had no card higher than the 9.  E-W quickly bid up
to 7S; after two passes, E-W exchanged hands, but South pointed out
that the auction wasn't over.  He then bid 7NT, and made it when he
was able to dictate which E-W cards to play.

(Naturally, this never really happened; the situation was invented in
order to present the hand as a play problem.  Unfortunately, I don't
have the book with me and can't post the hand.)

                                -- Adam

Roger Gillard wrote:
 > 
 > My partner was on lead but must have believed that I was declarer and
 > that my left-hand opponent had made an opening lead, so he placed all his
 > cards on the table as if he were dummy.
 
One publication from the ACBL listed bizarre happenings included:

Competitive bidding reaching 4H - P - P,  TANK.

Heart bidders thught bidding was over and exchanged hands.

DIRECTOR.

Heart bidders barred from bidding, 4S was bid knowing no doble was forthcoming.
26 penalty cards, making 10 tricks (sometimes there is nothing you can do
without the spots)

-- 
phillip a jaeger ==> riordan@mail.utexas.edu
===================================================================

if your circles could be spirals?
and your idols were machines?
you could pick up all the signals,
and fly from where you've been.

        -Are You Receiving Me?
                Golden Earring  ('73)

rgg@deakin.edu.au (Roger Gillard) wrote:


>I have a query for you gurus on the internet relating to a bizarre 
>happening that occurred when I was playing on a beginners night at our club.
>   My partner was on lead but must have believed that I was declarer and 
>that my left-hand opponent had made an opening lead, so he placed all his 
>cards on the table as if he were dummy. It all happened too quickly we could 
>not stop him!
>    Could you pleases tell me what the correct ruling was in this case? Our 
>not so experienced director decided that my partner had 13 penalty cards on 
>the table and declarer could nominate which card was to be lead. Was this 
>the correct ruling? And what should have happened when I was on lead and 10 
>cards were exposed in my partners hand? Could declarer require or forbid 
>the lead of any particular suit and would that mean that all or some of my 
>partners holding in that suit would no longer be penalty card/s??
>                         Help,help

>                                        Roger Gillard 

Roger

My reading of the Law is that Laws 49 and 51 apply.  In law 49 "each
such (exposed card becomes a penalty card" and 51 says "if a defender
has two or more penalty cards that can legally be played, declarer may
designate which is to be played at that turn". 

rgg@deakin.edu.au (Roger Gillard) wrote:
>
>I have a query for you gurus on the internet relating to a bizarre 
>happening that occurred when I was playing on a beginners night at our club.
>   My partner was on lead but must have believed that I was declarer and 
>that my left-hand opponent had made an opening lead, so he placed all his 
>cards on the table as if he were dummy. It all happened too quickly we could 
>not stop him!
>    Could you pleases tell me what the correct ruling was in this case? Our 
>not so experienced director decided that my partner had 13 penalty cards on 
>the table and declarer could nominate which card was to be lead. Was this 
>the correct ruling?

Yes.  Law 51A:
     If a defender has two or more penalty cards that can be legally played, 
     declarer may designate which is to be played at that turn.


>And what should have happened when I was on lead and 10 
>cards were exposed in my partners hand? Could declarer require or forbid 
>the lead of any particular suit and would that mean that all or some of my 
                                                          ^^^
>partners holding in that suit would no longer be penalty card/s??

This is also correct. Law 51B.1a(b):
      When a defender has two or more penalty cards in one suit, and declarer 
      requires (prohibits) the defender's partner to lead that suit, the cards of 
      that suit are no longer penalty cards and are picked up; the defender may   
      make any legal play to the trick.

Law 51 doesn't explicitly mention it, but declarer can also allow you to lead any 
card, and then designate which card your partner must play to the trick.  Now all 
of partner's remaining cards are still penalty cards.

Is this also the way the director ruled?  Sounds like (s)he is wisely doing what 
many 'experienced' directors fail to do, which is look in the Law book!

Cheers,

Stefanie Rohan

Riordan <riordan@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
> One publication from the ACBL listed bizarre happenings included:
> Competitive bidding reaching 4H - P - P,  TANK.
> Heart bidders thught bidding was over and exchanged hands.
> Heart bidders barred from bidding, 4S was bid knowing no doble was
> forthcoming. 26 penalty cards, making 10 tricks (sometimes there is
> nothing you can do without the spots)

In addition to having to suffer 26 penalty cards, the offending side
should also receive a procedural penalty for intentionally showing their
cards to each other (regardless of whether they thought the bidding was
over, or not).

                                        David desJardins
-- 
Copyright 1996 David desJardins.  Unlimited permission is granted to quote
from this posting for non-commercial use as long as attribution is given.

Stefanie Rohan <rgur@monmouth.com> wrote:
>rgg@deakin.edu.au (Roger Gillard) wrote:
>>
>>I have a query for you gurus on the internet relating to a bizarre 
>>happening that occurred when I was playing on a beginners night at our club.
>>   My partner was on lead but must have believed that I was declarer and 
>>that my left-hand opponent had made an opening lead, so he placed all his 
>>cards on the table as if he were dummy. It all happened too quickly we could 
>>not stop him!
>>    Could you pleases tell me what the correct ruling was in this case? Our 
>>not so experienced director decided that my partner had 13 penalty cards on 
>>the table and declarer could nominate which card was to be lead. Was this 
>>the correct ruling?
>
>Yes.  Law 51A:
>     If a defender has two or more penalty cards that can be legally played, 
>     declarer may designate which is to be played at that turn.
>
>
>>And what should have happened when I was on lead and 10 
>>cards were exposed in my partners hand? Could declarer require or forbid 
>>the lead of any particular suit and would that mean that all or some of my 
>                                                          ^^^
>>partners holding in that suit would no longer be penalty card/s??
>
>This is also correct. Law 51B.1a(b):
>      When a defender has two or more penalty cards in one suit, and declarer 
>      requires (prohibits) the defender's partner to lead that suit, the cards of 
>      that suit are no longer penalty cards and are picked up; the defender may   
>      make any legal play to the trick.
>

Oops! As Richard Lighton pointed out, declarer may prohibit more than one suit at 
once.  

>Law 51 doesn't explicitly mention it, but declarer can also allow you to lead any 
>card, and then designate which card your partner must play to the trick.  Now all 
>of partner's remaining cards are still penalty cards.
>
>Is this also the way the director ruled?  Sounds like (s)he is wisely doing what 
>many 'experienced' directors fail to do, which is look in the Law book!

And that's not even as bad as looking in the Law book and leaving something out!