Defender's void - a thought experiment
Consider a standard OLOOT.
S is declarer, E attempts an opening lead S3. S does not accept the lead, but instead insists on a spade lead from W.
W cannot comply, as s/he is void in spades.
W now has a free lead.
The issue: Is W's spade void AI to E?
It arises from the legal procedures, so under 16A1(c) it seems to be AI.
That seems wrong however - the knowledge of the void only exists because of E's infraction. Is it just "rub of the green" or is there something that makes it UI?
Comments
if the correct defender on lead calls the director before giving AI, could the TD aside and ask the declarer to lead any other suit or forbid the lead of specific suit?
The correct defender calling the director could itself be a source of UI to his partner that something was amiss.
I assume you mean UI, and I'm not precisely sure what you have in mind, but I think the answer is no.
I'd vote for AI Jeremy, based on 16A1(c). The void wasn't disclosed by the LOOT but by following the legal procedures that dealt with it
Peter Bushby Suffolk
I find these forums very useful but often get frustrated when someone asks for a ruling but instead gets a whole load of views and comments. I much prefer it when Robin or Gordon give a definitive answer. So see this one .... ** [Name & original comment removed at contributor's request]**says UI under 16C2 and Peter says AI under 16A1c !!!!!
Maybe in a case like this, where the matter is not specifically covered in the Laws, and where two views are possible, Robin or Gordon may need to take time to consult if their response is going to be considered definitive. FWIW I am with Peter and Jeremy. It is the operation of Law 59 which reveals the void and so I think it is AI.
I don't think that's correct: if a different option had been selected the void would not have been revealed. So it was due to the legal procedure of requiring a spade lead that the void became known.
But I'm still willing to listen to other views, so don't take this as definitive (yet)!
Let's not forget that forums are there to promote discussion so I wouldn't want to discourage that. I think there are enough experienced people here that an incorrect statement wouldn't be allowed to remain unchallenged for long.
I think the information is authorised. The fact that this information will be made available is a risk that declarer runs when he elects to impose the lead restriction.
I think I'm with Robin and Gordon here (and my original thought). It might seem contrary to other parts of the laws, and maybe even morally awry, but the law is the law.
As a follow on, when explaining the 5 options to declarer (after an OLOOT), should we mention the consequences of requesting a lead in a suit that opponent does not have (no second goes, AI of void to partner)? I don't usually, although occasionally I will mention the "no second go if there's a void". Of course this is a general point for any lead restriction because of a penalty card - it doesn't have to be opening lead. Indeed a void is more likely later on, although probably the knowledge of it less useful.
Failure to follow a lead restriction, when you have a card of the suit, is a revoke. That means that it at least seems logical that failure to follow a lead restriction, when you don't have a card of the suit, is showing out and causes everyone else at the table (including partner) to know you're void. It's not just the defender not on lead that finds out about the void; declarer does too. Because of that, this is the sort of thing that I think should be considered AI (and I agree with the argument that it's AI because it became clear as a result of following the game's legal procedures; it's mostly irrelevant that those procedures were only followed due to an infraction).