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

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Edward Fitzgerald (1809-1883),
translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:

"Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went."

Imps
North-South vulnerable

South is declarer in 4H, and has lost two
tricks so far.  At trick ten you, West are
on lead.
                NORTH (dummy)
                S K5
                H A
                D ---
                C ---
WEST (you)
S Q32
H ---
D ---
C ---

You have a complete count on the deal, so
you know that declarer's last three cards
are two spades plus the other outstanding
trump, while partner's last three cards
are two spades plus the thirteenth diamond.

Obviously your correct play is to lead the
deuce or trey of spades, in case declarer's
spade holding is Jx and declarer misguesses.

However, as you attempt to lead the deuce of
spades, you unintentionally drop both the
queen of spades and the deuce of spades
simultaneously face up on the table.

Law 58B2:

"If a player leads or plays two or more
cards simultaneously:
If more than one card is visible, the
player designates the card he proposes to
play; when he is a defender, each other
card exposed becomes a penalty card (see
Law 50)."

Law 50B:

"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 ....."

Law 50C:

"When a defender has a minor penalty card
..... Offender's partner is not subject to
lead penalty, but information gained
through seeing the penalty card is
extraneous, unauthorised (see Law 16A).

Law 72A5:

"Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending
side has paid the prescribed penalty for
an inadvertent 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."

The Director is summoned, and advises you
of your rights under Laws 58B2, 50B, 50C
and 72A5.

You realise that if you designate your
original choice of the deuce of spades as
the card you propose to play that will be
disastrous for the defence.  Your queen of
spades will be a major penalty card, so
when partner wins the spade trick then
declarer will be able to force pard to
lead their thirteenth diamond for a ruff-
and-discard.

Therefore, your only hope is that pard's
two spades are the AJ, so you select the
queen of spades as the card you propose to
play, since it seems that your deuce of
spades would be a minor penalty card thus
allowing pard to choose their only logical
alternative of cashing the jack of spades
for the setting trick.

You duly lead the queen of spades, and
declarer duly plays the king of spades,
and pard duly wins the ace of spades, and
pard delightfully holds the jack of
spades!!!

However.....

The Director rules that your deuce of
spades is a major penalty card, not a
minor penalty card.  The Director's
reasoning is that because you originally
intended to lead the deuce of spades, that
card was not exposed inadvertently.

You appeal to the National Authority.  How
should the National Authority rule?


Best wishes

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