[Solanum]

Declarer S
W is on lead, he has a spade penalty card, E has a heart penalty card.
Will declarer have option to request a heart lead ?
Thanks

[blackshoe]

Solanum, on 2014-August-07, 10:43, said:

Declarer S
W is on lead, he has a spade penalty card, E has a heart penalty card.
Will declarer have option to request a heart lead ?
Thanks

Yes.

Quote

Law 50D1{b}: The obligation to follow suit or to comply with a lead or play restriction takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card, but the penalty card must still be left face up on the table and played at the next legal opportunity.

So declarer can tells West to lead a heart, East picks up his penalty card and puts it back in his hand, West can lead any heart, East can play any heart. If West wins the trick or later regains the lead, or if a spade is later led by someone else, he must then lead his spade penalty card.

One other thing: if declarer tells West to lead a heart, and West has no hearts, he must lead his spade penalty card.

[pran]

Solanum, on 2014-August-07, 10:43, said:

Declarer S
W is on lead, he has a spade penalty card, E has a heart penalty card.
Will declarer have option to request a heart lead ?
Thanks

blackshoe, on 2014-August-07, 11:43, said:

Yes.
So declarer can tells West to lead a heart, East picks up his penalty card and puts it back in his hand, West can lead any heart, East can play any heart. If West wins the trick or later regains the lead, or if a spade is later led by someone else, he must then lead his spade penalty card.

One other thing: if declarer tells West to lead a heart, and West has no hearts, he must lead his spade penalty card.

Correct, except that there is an important condition on which of his hearts (if he has more than one) West may lead:

West may not choose to play one particular of his hearts rather than another if this choice "could be suggested" by the information available from the existence of East's penalty card. (Law 50E2)

Two examples might clarify this:

East has the King of hearts as a penalty card and South leads a heart. The fact that East must follow with his King is AI to West which therefore normally will play low from his Ace and a small.

Same position but now West is on the lead and South requests a heart led from West. The fact that East (and not South) has the King is now UI to West who may not lead his low heart (which is suggested by the UI) unless West has AI that clearly suggests the low rather than the Ace to be led.

Imagine the consequences when East's King is a singleton.

[blackshoe]

There are always UI considerations when partner has a penalty card.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-07, 13:28, said:

There are always UI considerations when partner has a penalty card.

Sure, but an important point is Law 50E1: Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players.

This includes the knowledge that the penalty card which must be played is (for instance) the King. However the knowledge that East has the King becomes UI to West at the very moment the King ceases to be a penalty card, i.e. before West selects which heart to lead at South's request.

[barmar]

And just to fill in the matrix, in case it isn't obvious: If declarer prohibits a heart lead, West has to lead his penalty card (I'm assuming it's a major PC) and East picks up his PC.

[blackshoe]

And if declarer neither prohibits nor requires a heart lead, West leads his PC and East's PC remains a PC, to be played at the first legal opportunity.

It occurs to me that one problem with laws that give multiple options is that players get impatient. The other day we had such a ruling at our table, and the player chose his option before the director got the third word out of her mouth. Players, I know you think you know the law, and maybe you do, but how about a little courtesy? Let the director do her thing, don't interrupt.

[barmar]

Was it the Opening Lead Out of Turn ruling? It's not just impatience, I think novices also just get confused, and as it keeps going on they get more confused.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-08, 09:39, said:

And if declarer neither prohibits nor requires a heart lead, West leads his PC and East's PC remains a PC, to be played at the first legal opportunity.

It occurs to me that one problem with laws that give multiple options is that players get impatient. The other day we had such a ruling at our table, and the player chose his option before the director got the third word out of her mouth. Players, I know you think you know the law, and maybe you do, but how about a little courtesy? Let the director do her thing, don't interrupt.

Maybe a reminder of:

Law 9 B 2 said:

No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

might be in order?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-August-08, 09:42, said:

Was it the Opening Lead Out of Turn ruling? It's not just impatience, I think novices also just get confused, and as it keeps going on they get more confused.

Yes. He wasn't a novice.

pran, on 2014-August-08, 10:09, said:

Maybe a reminder of Law 9B2 might be in order?

I wasn't the director.