[blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

John (MadDog) Probst:

>Yeah, I spotted this one in a tournament about 1997, and
>we kicked it around for a while. At the time I ruled per
>Kojak's 1999 view as it is clear to me that a Probst
>cheat can take advantage.  After a while I got howled
>down, and the "intention not relevant" interpretation
>was handed down to EBU TDs at a training course. So I
>rule per the White book in EBU events and per the WBF in
>events where the sponsor is not the EBU. ... but then
>I'm always in trouble with the EBU :)

Australian Directors' Bulletin, August 2000, page 18,
"Exploring the Laws", written by Queensland Chief
Director, Reg Busch:

>>West is to lead to South's contract of 4S.  However
>>East makes the opening lead out of turn, but in doing
>>so, manages to put both the CQ and H8 face up on the
>>table!  How do you rule?  (If East is asked, he will
>>tell you that he intended to play the H8 but
>>accidentally also pulled the card next to it).
>>
>>Henk Uijterwaal, a top director in the Netherlands,
>>reported this question on the Net.  It was one of a
>>series of practical questions in the Dutch examination
>>for senior directors, who were given five minutes to
>>decide their ruling.  Almost none got it right!

Richard Hills:

I am not particularly surprised about that, given that
blml is split down the middle on which of the two
alternative interpretations of Law 58B2 is correct.

Reg Busch:

>>This is not an everyday occurrence at the bridge table
>>(thank heaven), but it is worth discussing here
>>because it is a very useful exercise in exploring
>>some important Laws, and learning to find our way
>>around the Law Book.

[big snip]

>>I must insert a caveat here.  Some experienced
>>directors would not agree with the above.  They point
>>to the *definition of minor penalty card*:
>>
>>"A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed
>>inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or
>>in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor
>>penalty card.  Any card of honour rank, or any card
>>exposed through deliberate play (as in leading out of
>>turn, or in revoking and then correcting), becomes a
>>major penalty card..."
>>
>>They argue that if East is asked about or volunteers
>>the information that he meant to play the H8, then
>>this card was not played inadvertently but with
>>intent, so that it simply cannot be a _minor_ penalty
>>card by definition, but must be a _major_ penalty
>>card.
>>
>>I cannot agree with this view.  Law 58B could easily
>>have allowed for consideration of the offender's
>>intended play if it so wished.  In fact, it avoids
>>doing so.  As far as this Law is concerned, there are
>>two cards faced on the table and East has the option
>>of nominating one of them as his lead, with the other
>>becoming a major or minor penalty card depending on
>>its rank.  Even if East had volunteered that he meant
>>to play the H8, this is not relevant to the
>>application of Law 58B.

[big snip]

>>Wait.  Let's look at the definition of a minor penalty
>>card again.  *Law 50B* finishes with these words:
>>"when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all
>>such cards become major penalty cards."
>>
>>Under this Law, it would seem that, once declarer
>>requires the [out-of-turn opening] lead of the CQ to
>>be retracted and it becomes a major penalty card, then
>>automatically the H8 also becomes a _major_ penalty
>>card.  Or would this apply only once declarer has
>>exercised his [out-of-turn opening] lead rights in
>>relation to the CQ?  I incline to the former view, and
>>see declarer has now having [out-of-turn opening] lead
>>lead rights in relation to both clubs and hearts.
>>Others may take the latter view.  There sometimes
>>seems to be an inconsistency between one Law and
>>another.

[big snip]

>>directors' forums will always be a paradise for the
>>nitpickers.

Richard Hills:

In my opinion, "sometimes seems to be an inconsistency"
and "paradise for nitpickers" are perhaps overly mild
understatements in the "Yes Minister" tradition. As, for
example, this quote from the famous BBC TV series:

"Almost anything can be attacked as a failure, but
almost anything can be defended as not a significant
failure.  Politicians do not appreciate the significance
of 'significant'."

Reg Busch:

>>So my answer to the question would be:
>>
>>1. Ask East which card he proposes to play, indicating
>>the implications re minor and major penalty cards.
>>Ignore any comment by East as to his intentions, but
>>warn West that East's comments are unauthorised
>>information.
>>
>>2. If East nominates the CQ, explain South's options.
>>If he accepts the lead either by seeing dummy or by
>>making North declarer, then the H8 remains as a minor
>>penalty card.  If he requires the lead to be
>>retracted, then both the CQ and the H8 become major
>>penalty cards, with Law 51 applying.


Season's greetings

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285

Your Rights at Work
worth voting for