[blml] AI or UI

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
********************************
"Don't throw away the old bucket until
you know whether the new one holds
water."   - Swedish saying.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] AI or UI


>> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk
>> From: "Steve Willner" <swillner at nhcc.net>
>> To: <blml at rtflb.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:43 AM
>> Subject: [blml] AI or UI
>>
>>
>> > This really happened, and I don't know the answer even after reading
>> > the
>> > FLB (1997 version).
>> >
>> > East leads H-K, strongly suggesting possession of the Q, out of turn.
>> > The TD gives South, declarer, his options, and he requires a heart
>> > lead.
>> > The H-K is picked up; West duly leads a small H, and East plays the Q.
>> >
>> > 1. Under the 1997 Laws, is East's possession of H-K AI or UI to West?
>> >
>> > 2. Does it change under the new Laws?  If so, why?
>> >
>> > (In the actual case, East got on lead early and put H-K on the table,
>> > so
>> > the point was irrelevant, but the question is still worth answering.)
>> >
>> +=+ H-K is 'picked up'.  ?Becomes a major penalty card - failure to play
>> a major penalty card at the first opportunity gives declarer further
>> options?
>>     Am I missing something here? I am looking at 2007 Laws 54D and 52?
>
> 2007 Law 50D2a?
>
> Regards Sven
>
+=+ Ah! I'm awake now. 50D2(a) specifies that "the card is no longer a
penalty card". So defender may indeed play the Q. However, I do not
believe it is right to say the question is simply whether the card is
'withdrawn' for the purposes of Law 16C2 (2007: 16D2).       True, the
King was played and has now been returned to the hand so that I do not
see how it can be anything but 'retracted'. However, more to the point, in
my view, is whether the information to which 50E2 refers continues to be
information that was obtained 'from sight of ' the penalty card.
      I do not see a statement that Law 50E2 has ceased to apply to that
information. If we study 50E2 do we not find that the statement it makes
is open-ended ?
                                                      ~ Grattan ~   +=+