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

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills:

>>>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.

Steve Willner:

>>We had a very long thread on this subject perhaps
>>three or four years ago.  As already seen in the
>>current thread, opinion was split but fiercely
>>held on both sides.  I'm slightly surprised there
>>is no WBFLC minute on the subject by now -- or
>>have I missed one?

John (MadDog) Probst:

>Max IIRC has come down in favour of Major pen
>card, but has grave doubts. He can stand minor pen
>card. The fundamental is whether the TD tries to
>establish intent - and perhaps he shouldn't.

Richard Hills:

In my opinion, if the WBF LC deems that the
_original_ intent of the defender should be
relevant, then the WBF LC should amend Law 58B2 to
read:

"If more than one card is visible, the player
designates the card that he originally intended to
play (but if a defender originally intended to play
a card not visible, then the defender freely chooses
from amongst their visible cards); when he is a
defender, each other card exposed becomes a
penalty card (see Law 50)."

This would avoid the inconsistency of the EBU
interpretation that a defender is deemed to have
led a particular card, but still has the Law 58B2
right to change that led card to another card.

Steve Willner:

>>Richard's case has a new wrinkle in that
>>defender's probable intention can be inferred from
>>the bridge situation.  In more common cases, the
>>original intention can't be known without mind
>>reading.

Richard Hills:

Not quite.  Suppose my scenario has its facts
slightly modified:

"However, as you are Papa the Greek, who false-
cards as a matter of habit, you attempt to lead the
*three* of spades.  As you attempt to do so, the
trey of spades remains hidden in your hand, but you
unintentionally drop both the queen of spades and
the deuce of spades simultaneously face up on the
table."

In this case, both the EBU interpretation and the
alternate interpretation lead to the same result
- if the queen of spades is selected as the
defensive lead, then the two of spades is a minor
penalty card.

Of course, if Papa the Greek was declarer, then it
seems to me that Law 48A would over-ride Law 58B2,
permitting Papa the declarer to withdraw both
exposed cards and instead play his originally
intended card of the three of spades.


Best wishes

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