[benlessard]

Could some1 explain to me the logic behind law 57.

Its seems that compared to a regular lead out the turn forcing the high or low card penalty is extremely harsh, and im wondering why ?

[pran]

benlessard, on Oct 29 2009, 02:57 PM, said:

Could some1 explain to me the logic behind law 57.

Its seems that compared to a regular lead out the turn forcing the high or low card penalty is extremely harsh, and im wondering why ?

Law 57 is essentially unchanged from the 1997 and 1987 laws, so I assume the EBL commentary issued in 1992 must still be considered relevant:

This law deals with situations arising when:
a: A defender leads to the following trick before his partner has played to the current trick; or
b: a defender plays out of turn to the current trick bewfore his partner has played to it.

The Law is necessary in order not to leave scope for the one player to influence his partner's choice of play improperly.

An example to show why the prescribed alternatives available to declarer are not harsh is when declarer leads a small trump towards dummy and RHO immediately plays his stiff Ace before LHO has followed suit from his Kx.

Without knowing that RHO holds the Ace LHO could be tempted to secure a trick for his King; RHO can of course not be permitted to "inform" LHO that this is unnecessary.

I do not think that Law 57 is unreasonable harsh in any way.

regards Sven

[mink]

---

South is declarer in a notrump contract, and he has no entry to the hand. It is Dummy's turn to lead, and declarer choses the A, desperately hoping to find a stiff K, but West, who thinks he had won the previous trick (he is wrong), simultaneously "leads" the 5. LAW 58A transforms this lead out of turn to a premature play, and declarer wishes that East plays his highest card. Is this harsh, or not?

Karl

[gordontd]

mink, on Nov 3 2009, 11:17 PM, said:

Is this harsh, or not?

Well, it's a little contrived, but those who fail to follow the most basic requirements of the game must expect that sometimes bad things will happen as a consequence.

How would you prefer that we prevent defenders from assisting their partners and damaging declarers by playing prematurely?

[bluejak]

mink, on Nov 3 2009, 11:17 PM, said:

A2 54 K3 QJT9876

South is declarer in a notrump contract, and he has no entry to the hand. It is Dummy's turn to lead, and declarer choses the A, desperately hoping to find a stiff K, but West, who thinks he had won the previous trick (he is wrong), simultaneously "leads" the 5. LAW 58A transforms this lead out of turn to a premature play, and declarer wishes that East plays his highest card. Is this harsh, or not?

Not, in my view.

When I do something wrong I expect to suffer as a result. It is a pity that more people do not follow this.

[jdonn]

I think that example is clearly too harsh. Also it's not hard to think of a much better alternative rule. Why couldn't such a lead by west simply be treated as any other UI? If it suggests a play then east can't make that play unless there are no other logical alternatives.

Forcing east to play the king here simply goes against all common sense because east would have never played the king. And saying 'they did something wrong so they should expect to be punished' is a gross oversimplification that misses the point that the punishment does not fit the crime.

[Echognome]

It might be harsh here, but change the hand to:

---

North leads the Q from dummy and say that East doesn't know whether south has a six or seven card suit and is debating whether to take the Ace and try to give partner a ruff or hope that partner has the K. Now West contributes the K. Wouldn't we think making East play the A is a punishment that fits the crime now?

If so, how do you word the law to make it appropriate in this case and not in the former? The "punishment" is meted out for the action "playing out of turn". What do you propose the punishment be? This is the changing laws and regulations forum after all.

[jdonn]

Echognome, on Nov 3 2009, 06:56 PM, said:

It might be harsh here, but change the hand to:

QJ K Axx T9xxxxx

North leads the Q from dummy and say that East doesn't know whether south has a six or seven card suit and is debating whether to take the Ace and try to give partner a ruff or hope that partner has the K.  Now West contributes the K.  Wouldn't we think making East play the A is a punishment that fits the crime now?

If so, how do you word the law to make it appropriate in this case and not in the former?  The "punishment" is meted out for the action "playing out of turn".  What do you propose the punishment be?  This is the changing laws and regulations forum after all.

If playing the ace is a logical alternative absent west's play out of turn then east must play it. Just like with any UI. And in this case it clearly would be one since east wasn't sure of the situation. Why would that be hard to work into the law?

[Echognome]

I like that idea. Just consider it a UI case. Again, my post was to point out that to simply complain something isn't right without providing an alternative... is simply not helping to address a problem. Maybe you had treating these as UI cases in your mind the whole time, but rereading your post and the others in this thread hasn't lead me to find any such alternatives.

It would certainly seem more apt to force the worst logical alternative on defender's partners in these cases rather than an arbitrary highest or lowest card at the discretion of declarer.

[duschek]

Quite a lot of strong players maintain the view that mechanical errors, such as calls or plays out of turn, insufficient bids, and revokes (at least those not established), should be resolved as UI cases instead of being rectified by means of rigid rules which randomly hand points to non-offenders that they could never have scored on some occasions, and provide them with nothing on other occasions.

Certainly, there is no more inherent justice in the current mechanical error-laws than there would be resolving them as UI cases. There are two reasons for the current state of affairs, for which I would not expect the WBF-LC to abandon the current principles:

• Historical reasons. Most mechanical error-laws have a long history of mechanical solutions.
  
• At the club level, it is much more practical to use mechanical resolutions and accepting that they are sometimes too harsh, than to tconfuse the players with the UI and LA concepts.

When both playing strength and ethics are at a high level, I have no doubt that most players would prefer the UI/LA approach - they have just learnt to accept the strange consequences of the Laws, which apply to them rarely after all, as the rate of mechanical errors decreases when playing strength increases.

[lamford]

pran, on Oct 29 2009, 01:54 PM, said:

I do not think that Law 57 is unreasonable harsh in any way.

I would agree, and go further, in that it is incorrectly drafted and does not cover every situation. It says:

<snip> He may:
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. forbid offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer. <snip>

It should be corrected by inserting "require or" before "forbid" in clause 3. Else we have a situation such as the following, known as the Heinz 57 coup after a player callled Heinz at a club in Birmingham who perpetrated it, drawing attention to the deficiency in the Law:

---

This is a side suit, and declarer leads from dummy. While East is considering whether to ruff, having no idea who has the nine and who has the eight, West contributes the 9. East now correctly discards a side suit.

Now declarer is unable to obtain redress from any of 1 thru 3 above, and the TD has to rely on Law 23, where I agree that even if it is implausible that West could have been aware that the infraction would benefit his side, the TD has to rule that he could have been. But far better to have Law 57 correct in the first place!

[axman]

lamford, on Nov 6 2009, 08:55 AM, said:

pran, on Oct 29 2009, 01:54 PM, said:

I do not think that Law 57 is unreasonable harsh in any way.

I would agree, and go further, in that it is incorrectly drafted and does not cover every situation. It says:

<snip> He may:
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. forbid offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer. <snip>

It should be corrected by inserting "require or" before "forbid" in clause 3. Else we have a situation such as the following, known as the Heinz 57 coup after a player callled Heinz at a club in Birmingham who perpetrated it, drawing attention to the deficiency in the Law:

---

This is a side suit, and declarer leads from dummy. While East is considering whether to ruff, having no idea who has the nine and who has the eight, West contributes the 9. East now correctly discards a side suit.

Now declarer is unable to obtain redress from any of 1 thru 3 above, and the TD has to rely on Law 23, where I agree that even if it is implausible that West could have been aware that the infraction would benefit his side, the TD has to rule that he could have been. But far better to have Law 57 correct in the first place!

I concur that 2008L57A was crafted poorly and is less than a satisfactory remedy since [as pointed out] the remedy does not appear to suit the crime; but I also feel that merely adding/changing nominally the few suggested words in that paragraph would be insufficient to yield a satisfactory passage.

To expand further, shouldn’t the remedies apply to all contestants rather than to select classes of contestants? For instance, aren’t all players required to play only at their appointed turn? Yet, defenders pay dearly when they fail while declarer [when intelligent] has only upside.

To demonstrate the difference in my view the following [without context] gives a fair representation of my view. As a preface, I look upon acting out of turn as a feat of fortune telling:

A2. POOT
a. POOT Condoned If offender’s opponent condones a POOT it is considered as if played in turn, play continues in clockwise rotation skipping any player that has contributed a card to the trick.
b. POOT Not Condoned If a POOT is not condoned it is withdrawn and left faced on the table, play reverts to the rightful contestant, and, the withdrawn card shall be played at offender’s next turn even if subject to penalty** . Further if the POOT skipped the turn of offender’s partner, and the withdrawn card was
1. played at his partner’s turn to lead, offender’s RHO may require [L59] offender’s partner to [1] lead the highest or lowest card of the suit of the withdrawn card, or [2] not lead the suit, or [3] neither.
2. played other than at his partner’s turn to lead, offender’s RHO may select a suit and require [L59] offender’s partner to play at his next turn his highest or lowest card of a selected suit.
c. The A2b option supersedes the requirement to discharge the play of an existing PC.

** A2b Requiring the withdrawn card to be played at offender’s next turn even if it does not follow suit may feel awkward. The POOT is considered to be offender’s next play and therefore it is played at his next turn. If it is an illegal play he is permitted to correct it according to law

[pran]

lamford, on Nov 6 2009, 02:55 PM, said:

pran, on Oct 29 2009, 01:54 PM, said:

I do not think that Law 57 is unreasonable harsh in any way.

I would agree, and go further, in that it is incorrectly drafted and does not cover every situation. It says:

<snip> He may:
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. forbid offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer. <snip>

It should be corrected by inserting "require or" before "forbid" in clause 3. Else we have a situation such as the following, known as the Heinz 57 coup after a player callled Heinz at a club in Birmingham who perpetrated it, drawing attention to the deficiency in the Law:

---

This is a side suit, and declarer leads from dummy. While East is considering whether to ruff, having no idea who has the nine and who has the eight, West contributes the 9. East now correctly discards a side suit.

Now declarer is unable to obtain redress from any of 1 thru 3 above, and the TD has to rely on Law 23, where I agree that even if it is implausible that West could have been aware that the infraction would benefit his side, the TD has to rule that he could have been. But far better to have Law 57 correct in the first place!

No need for that. Law 57 makes sense as it is, and the offending side is still subject to UI restrictions. That will take care of the "problem" quoted.

regards Sven

[lamford]

pran, on Nov 6 2009, 02:02 PM, said:

No need for that. Law 57 makes sense as it is, and the offending side is still subject to UI restrictions. That will take care of the "problem" quoted.

Well ... the casual reader of the laws might stumble across Law 59:

"A player may play any otherwise legal card if he is unable to lead or play as required to comply with a rectification, whether because he holds no card of the required suit, or because he has only cards of a suit he is prohibited from leading, or because he is obliged to follow suit."

He might wrongly conclude that this precisely worded clause means what it says, and not realise that it does not apply in certain situations.

While I agree that the above clause has to be disregarded where the wrong drafting of Law 57 - and do not defend it by claiming that it makes sense as it is - leads to unfairness, it is far better to get the Law right in the first place.

[pran]

lamford, on Nov 7 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 6 2009, 02:02 PM, said:

No need for that. Law 57 makes sense as it is, and the offending side is still subject to UI restrictions. That will take care of the "problem" quoted.

Well ... the casual reader of the laws might stumble across Law 59:

"A player may play any otherwise legal card if he is unable to lead or play as required to comply with a rectification, whether because he holds no card of the required suit, or because he has only cards of a suit he is prohibited from leading, or because he is obliged to follow suit."

He might wrongly conclude that this precisely worded clause means what it says, and not realise that it does not apply in certain situations.

While I agree that the above clause has to be disregarded where the wrong drafting of Law 57 - and do not defend it by claiming that it makes sense as it is - leads to unfairness, it is far better to get the Law right in the first place.

We have had similar situations under discussion when training Directors in Norway.

The logic we are asked to apply is this:

At the time East eventually decides on whether or not to use his trump he has the extraneous and unauthorized information that West holds the highest outstanding card in the suit led.

Although declarer has no option to request East to play his trump after west's infraction of law, the Director shall rule that East may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. (Law 16B1a)

Consequently East in this case has the choice between using his trump anyway or have the result on the board subsequently adjusted to the result had he used his trump, if such adjustment gives declaring side a better result.

[lamford]

I agree absolutely with the method of handling the problem, but that means that Law 59 should be qualified with something like "except as provided in Law 16b" and any other relevant Law in each case. Otherwise there is a problem when two Laws say different things; it depends which one reads first, as there is no indication (that I can see) of precedence!

[pran]

lamford, on Nov 7 2009, 11:39 PM, said:

I agree absolutely with the method of handling the problem, but that means that Law 59 should be qualified with something like "except as provided in Law 16b" and any other relevant Law in each case. Otherwise there is a problem when two Laws say different things; it depends which one reads first, as there is no inidcation (that I can see) of precedence!

The answer to this is that Law 16 always applies unless specifically excepted. (See for instance Law 27B1a)

[axman]

pran, on Nov 7 2009, 03:24 PM, said:

lamford, on Nov 7 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 6 2009, 02:02 PM, said:

No need for that. Law 57 makes sense as it is, and the offending side is still subject to UI restrictions. That will take care of the "problem" quoted.

Well ... the casual reader of the laws might stumble across Law 59:

"A player may play any otherwise legal card if he is unable to lead or play as required to comply with a rectification, whether because he holds no card of the required suit, or because he has only cards of a suit he is prohibited from leading, or because he is obliged to follow suit."

He might wrongly conclude that this precisely worded clause means what it says, and not realise that it does not apply in certain situations.

While I agree that the above clause has to be disregarded where the wrong drafting of Law 57 - and do not defend it by claiming that it makes sense as it is - leads to unfairness, it is far better to get the Law right in the first place.

We have had similar situations under discussion when training Directors in Norway.

The logic we are asked to apply is this:

At the time East eventually decides on whether or not to use his trump he has the extraneous and unauthorized information that West holds the highest outstanding card in the suit led.

Although declarer has no option to request East to play his trump after west's infraction of law, the Director shall rule that East may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. (Law 16B1a)

Consequently East in this case has the choice between using his trump anyway or have the result on the board subsequently adjusted to the result had he used his trump, if such adjustment gives declaring side a better result.

QUOTE=pran,Nov 6 2009, 02:02 PM] No need for that. Law 57 makes sense as it is, and the offending side is still subject to UI restrictions. That will take care of the "problem" quoted.

This assertion, while probably dubious, is a subject for argument. The problem [well, at least a problem] with L16 is that it tells the player what to not do while deftly avoiding instruction with respect as for what to do. The specific thing that the player is to not do ought to put the player into the deepest of quandries- the outcome being that it takes him quite some time with it.

To keep this thought in mind, a function of law ought to provide solutions to problems. And a law like 16 ought to be of the last resort, not the first.

The construction of L57 is such that merely some of the time does it give some proximation of balancing the scales. So, if the method of L57 is appropriate some of the time so as to avoid invoking L16, why should such construction omit the rest of the time? I believe that it ought [be fixed] to be sufficient to avoid tangling with L16 every time.

[blackshoe]

pran, on Nov 7 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

The answer to this is that Law 16 always applies unless specifically excepted. (See for instance Law 27B1a)

Okay. Why?

Frankly, I think the organization of the law book is flawed. I would do something like:

Part 1 - Introduction, Scope, Definitions
Part 2 - Correct Procedure (all the way from "sit down at the table before round 1" to "time to go home").
Part 3 - Irregularities and how to deal with them
Part 4 - Whatever else

That may have been what the DC wanted to do in this last iteration of laws revision, but if so it unfortunately didn't happen. I do know that there was strong pressure to keep the organization of the law book as unchanged as possible, however flawed and for whatever reason.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Nov 8 2009, 04:14 AM, said:

pran, on Nov 7 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

The answer to this is that Law 16 always applies unless specifically excepted. (See for instance Law 27B1a)

Okay. Why?

Because it is a general law that (according to principles) apply unless overriden by a more specific law. And neither Law 57 nor Law 59 overrides Law 16.

axman, on Nov 8 2009, 12:51 AM, said:

This assertion, while probably dubious, is a subject for argument. The problem [well, at least a problem] with L16 is that it tells the player what to not do while deftly avoiding instruction with respect as for what to do. The specific thing that the player is to not do ought to put the player into the deepest of quandries- the outcome being that it takes him quite some time with it.

While it is (to some extent) true that Law 16 does not tell players what to do, this law tells the Director what to do.

Some fifty years ago the Director would in Norway frequently inspect the cards held by a player that was suspected of having based his call or play on UI, and in case order a different call or play. Pretty soon it was realized that the result of this was disclosing important information on that player's hand to the other three players (regardless of whether or not he ordered the call or play to be changed), effectively making normal play of the board impossible.

A consequence of this is that Norwegian directors may during the auction or play never make rulings that apparently are based on knowledge of any hand. Such rulings must be postponed until after play is completed.

Law 16 tells the players what they must avoid and implicitly warns them that an adjusted score may be subsequently assigned by the Director if he finds that they have violated this law.