Director error
I wasn't directing last night but it is club policy that people on the director rota help each other out if they can deal with a call more conveniently than the evening's appointed playing director. I was dummy and the director was in the middle of a hand, so I went to deal with the call.
(The director concerned used to be an excellent County-level director, but he is not as young as he was, and I have noticed the occasional blind spot).
This is what I found:
An exposed dummy with 12 cards; one quitted trick pointed in favour of the defenders; declarer (S) had 12 cards in his hand; the defenders each had 11 cards in their hands and an exposed spade in front of them.
It transpired that the director had been called to deal with an opening (spade) lead out of turn by E, but had omitted two crucial aspects in explaining the applicable law:
(a) that if declarer elected to require or forbid a spade lead, the card led out of turn was no longer a penalty card and should be picked up; and
(b) that if declarer elected to forbid a spade lead, the proper leader had to lose the lead before he could switch to a spade.
I suspect that he may also have omitted to set out the UI implications, either generally or with specific reference to a possible spade switch.
You can guess what had happened. Declarer had forbidden a spade lead, and the proper leader (W) had cashed a trick and promptly switched to a spade. At this point declarer, a very experienced player whose knowledge of the laws appears to vary somewhat according to which side's interests knowledge of the laws appears to favour at the time, said "I don't think you can do that" and I was called. W, incidentally, is also highly experienced, but one of the breed that seems to regard ignorance of the laws as a badge of honour.
I ruled:
(1) The card originally led by E was no longer a penalty card and should be picked up.
(2) W was not entitled to lead a spade until he had lost the lead.
So far, so easy, but what about W's exposed spade?
(3) I decided that it was not equitable for W to have a penalty card given that he would not have had one had the director made a complete and accurate statement of the position when originally called, so I decided to stretch the wording of the first paragraph of Law 50, and rule that the card was not led, so that I could designate it as not being a penalty card, so I told him to return it to his hand.
(4) All information arising from what had happened was authorised to declarer.
(5) Subject to one exception, all information arising from what had happened was unauthorised to the defence, specifically:
(a) E's possession of the specific card she had originally led out of turn;
(b) The fact that E had initially wished to lead a spade;
(c) W's possession of the specific card he had tried to switch to at trick 2; and
(d) The fact that W had wanted to switch to a spade at trick 2.
(6) However, the fact that declarer had forbidden a spade at trick one was authorised to the defence.
(7) Call me back at the end if either side (because of the existence of director error) feels damaged.
Did I get anything wrong or omit anything I should have included?
I wasn't called back, but I did wonder this: had West lost the lead and subsequently regained it and switched to a spade, then in making a UI ruling how does one reconcile the fact that it is unauthorised to W that E wanted to lead a spade initially, but authorised to him that S wanted to stop W leading one?
Comments
I think that you were right to designate West's spade not a penalty card. White Book 8.50.4:
Although West has UI when he is next on lead, I suspect the fact that declarer forbade a spade lead earlier means that leading a spade now is the only logical alternative.
I was worried that I was constrained by the "but not led" bit.