Law 57A
I have found it very hard to get my head around Law57A. This law does not appear to receive any treatment in the White Book. I have been trying to work my way through this law but if anything I have become more confused. Admittedly, it maybe just something very simple that I have made more complicated for myself.
Law57A sets out that "When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn before his partner has played, the card so led or played becomes a major penalty card, and declarer selects one of the following
options."
1. require offender’s partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led, or
2. require offender’s partner to play the lowest card he holds of the suit led, or
3. require offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer, or
4. forbid offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer.
The law specifies "play" by Offender's partner (not led) so I assume the restriction is being applied to this specific trick? Not to subsequent tricks where the Offender's Partner might gain the lead?
BUT
My FIRST query relates to how this section is worded - is Declarer free NOT to choose any of these options?
SECOND, presumably Offender's partner MUST follow suit if they are able to - regardless of Option 3 being selected?
THIRD - what happens if Offender's partner already has a MAJOR PC that they could play but which is neither the highest nor lowest of the suit led or has a MAJOR PC in another suit? Do the requirements of Options 1, 2, 3 & 4 take precedence over the possession of a MAJOR PC?
And FOURTH, a little separate, if the Offender already had a minor PC before acquiring a MAJOR PC in the manner above then does that pre-existing MINOR PC now become a MAJOR one as well?
Grateful for any guidance.
Comments
Your questions:
FIRST. The wording suggests to me that Declarer must choose one of these options
SECOND. Yes, the player must follow suit so any requirement that they play another suit would have no effect:
LAW 57B. Offender’s Partner Cannot Comply with Rectification
When offender’s partner is unable to comply with the rectification selected by declarer (see A above) he may play any card, as provided in Law 59.
THIRD Law 50D.
Disposition of Major Penalty Card
FOURTH Law 50 B. Major or Minor Penalty Card
when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major penalty cards.
I'd not really noticed law 57 before. Does it have some unintended consequences?
Play is defined as "The contribution of a card from one’s hand to a trick, including the first card."
So if a defender leads out of turn when his partner is on lead, he "plays out of turn before his partner has played". Why is law 57 not triggered (since it clearly isn't)?
The lead out of turn has it's own law dealing with that specific situation, and the wording of Law 57 does quite clearly distinguish between a lead to the next trick or else playing prematurely to the current one. But it might have been more precise to say follow. I think what I would say is that while a lead is generally a type of play, in the specific case of Law 57 the reference is to a play that is not also a lead.
Are you able to expand on this? Is there a straightforward example which illustrates the situation?
I think what Law 57 refers to is, for instance, North (dummy) leads to a trick, East follows, South plays and before West plays to this trick, East leads to the next one. As opposed to leading out of turn after the trick has been completed.
The laws (and the director) have to distinguish whether a card played not at that player's turn to play is a lead out of turn or a premature/superfluous play to a trick currently in progress. The laws assume that the director can always make this determination - when it is not obvious the director can base the determination on what was said and how the offending player acted.
If it is a lead, then Laws 53-56 apply. If it is a play then Law 57 (or Law 45E - fifth card played to a trick) applies.
Note from a player perspective, this can be one of the most painful and punishing laws.
The last time I enforced this as a Director, dummy led to trick 9 and declarer's LHO played to the trick before his partner (who was contemplating his discard) played 2nd to the trick. Declarer forced his RHO to play a trump and the only trump he held was the high trump which was played on his partner's winner, allowing a game contract to make.
It rarely needs to be applied because it’s so easy to avoid infracting and so obvious how serious the effect of an infraction might be. I’m content for it to be a punishing law.
From the introduction in the laws:
_They are designed not to punish irregularities _
And yet this one has that effect, which in my opinion is not such a bad thing.
It reminds me of the revoke laws, where (in some circumstances) there is an automatic penalty. There's a similar tendency for this infraction to work to the advantage of the offending side, in the example given after the play of the winner partner now knows not to ruff. May or may not have been clear, is now obvious. As Gordon says, it's "obvious how serious an effect of the infraction may be".
The main reason to have a punitive law (in my mind) is to ensure the non offending side don't suffer damage. Where it's too easy to gain by an infraction, as here, I think this reasonable.