Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Exposed Card Rules
43 views
Skip to first unread message
vic...@iol.ie
Jan 24, 2012, 7:14:56 AM1/24/12
to
Due to an eror in leading out of turn I had an Ace left exposed as a
penalty card.
My partner led a suit other than that of my eposed ACE , this led
suit being one in which I had no other card with which to follow suit.
I had trump cards in my hand and, normally , would have ruffed the
oponents reply to the lead.
There was a disagreemnet here where the oponents claimed that , in
this case , I was bound by the law to discard the exposed ACE in this
circumstance and could not use trumps here to ruff.
What is the correct procedure here ?
penalty card.
My partner led a suit other than that of my eposed ACE , this led
suit being one in which I had no other card with which to follow suit.
I had trump cards in my hand and, normally , would have ruffed the
oponents reply to the lead.
There was a disagreemnet here where the oponents claimed that , in
this case , I was bound by the law to discard the exposed ACE in this
circumstance and could not use trumps here to ruff.
What is the correct procedure here ?
PriorKnowledge
Jan 24, 2012, 7:41:32 AM1/24/12
to
opportunity. Sorry.
Steve Foster
Jan 24, 2012, 8:13:44 AM1/24/12
to
first legal opportunity, whether following suit or discarding (L50D1).
That means that if you cannot follow suit (regardless of who led), you
_must_ discard the MPC. That it happens to be an Ace is your misfortune.
Note that if your partner gains the lead while you have a MPC, Declarer
has rights over your partner's choice of lead. So a TD _should_ have
been called at that point (the TD who designated the card a MPC should
have explained this - a TD was called to deal with the LOOT, right?)
So, having called the TD (back/again), he would outline Declarer's
options:
* bar leading the suit of your MPC for as long as partner retains the
lead; the MPC is returned to your hand
* insist on the lead of the suit of your MPC; the MPC is returned to
your hand
* give partner free choice of lead; the MPC remains so, and must be
played at the first legal opportunity.
The first two options have riders that if partner is unable to comply
(due to having only/no cards of the MPC suit), that's tough luck for
declarer. Also, in these cases where the MPC is returned to hand,
partner's knowledge of it is UI for him (but not Declarer).
If your partner has free rein, and leads a suit where you have no
cards, you _must_ discard the MPC (as we're back to L50D1).
--
Steve Foster
For SSL Certificates, Domains, etc, visit.:
https://netshop.virtual-isp.net
David Stevenson
Jan 24, 2012, 8:41:14 AM1/24/12
to
wrote
The procedure is to call the TD and do what he says. Unless you were
playing rubber bridge it seems completely incredible to me that you were
arguing with opponents over the correct procedure. In a rubber club the
host will usually do the job of the TD. If you are playing rubber in
someone's home it does no harm to have a Law book handy.
As to the correct ruling, the opponents are correct: when you have a
Major Penalty card [and an honour is never a Minor Penalty card] then
you must play it at the first legal opportunity so that means you have
to discard it now.
Note that the TD would have explained the rules so not calling him is
doubly stupid. Your partner, having been told you could not ruff this
card, might have led something different to avoid you having to discard
your ace.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
playing rubber bridge it seems completely incredible to me that you were
arguing with opponents over the correct procedure. In a rubber club the
host will usually do the job of the TD. If you are playing rubber in
someone's home it does no harm to have a Law book handy.
As to the correct ruling, the opponents are correct: when you have a
Major Penalty card [and an honour is never a Minor Penalty card] then
you must play it at the first legal opportunity so that means you have
to discard it now.
Note that the TD would have explained the rules so not calling him is
doubly stupid. Your partner, having been told you could not ruff this
card, might have led something different to avoid you having to discard
your ace.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
David Stevenson
Jan 24, 2012, 8:43:12 AM1/24/12
to
Steve Foster wrote
MPC is played. I have serious doubts from the original story as to
whether a TD was *ever* called.
>Note that if your partner gains the lead while you have a MPC, Declarer
>has rights over your partner's choice of lead. So a TD _should_ have
>been called at that point (the TD who designated the card a MPC should
>have explained this - a TD was called to deal with the LOOT, right?)
When there is an MPC, competent TDs do not leave the table until the
>has rights over your partner's choice of lead. So a TD _should_ have
>been called at that point (the TD who designated the card a MPC should
>have explained this - a TD was called to deal with the LOOT, right?)
MPC is played. I have serious doubts from the original story as to
whether a TD was *ever* called.
Lorne
Jan 24, 2012, 9:02:07 AM1/24/12
to
wrote in message news:do7th79017en2pi3u...@4ax.com...
.......................................
You call the director when the infraction occurs and he should tell you the
implications of the penalty card which would leed to you knowing what to do
(and would also make partner aware of what would happen if he leads a suit
you are void in).
If you did call the director and he did not tell you you have to play the
ace in these circumstances I would complain. He should also have made
declarer aware of his rights to ban or demand the lead of this suit if he
wished to.
You call the director when the infraction occurs and he should tell you the
implications of the penalty card which would leed to you knowing what to do
(and would also make partner aware of what would happen if he leads a suit
you are void in).
If you did call the director and he did not tell you you have to play the
ace in these circumstances I would complain. He should also have made
declarer aware of his rights to ban or demand the lead of this suit if he
wished to.
derek
Jan 24, 2012, 11:38:04 AM1/24/12
to
On Jan 24, 9:43 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
the end of the hand", they practically never do, so you can't leave
the table and say "call me back when you get on lead if the penalty
cards haven't been played".
wrote:
> Steve Foster wrote
>
> >Note that if your partner gains the lead while you have a MPC, Declarer
> >has rights over your partner's choice of lead. So a TD _should_ have
> >been called at that point (the TD who designated the card a MPC should
> >have explained this - a TD was called to deal with the LOOT, right?)
>
> When there is an MPC, competent TDs do not leave the table until the
> MPC is played. I have serious doubts from the original story as to
> whether a TD was *ever* called.
That's what I was thinking. If we tell players to "call me back at
>
> >Note that if your partner gains the lead while you have a MPC, Declarer
> >has rights over your partner's choice of lead. So a TD _should_ have
> >been called at that point (the TD who designated the card a MPC should
> >have explained this - a TD was called to deal with the LOOT, right?)
>
> When there is an MPC, competent TDs do not leave the table until the
> MPC is played. I have serious doubts from the original story as to
> whether a TD was *ever* called.
the end of the hand", they practically never do, so you can't leave
the table and say "call me back when you get on lead if the penalty
cards haven't been played".
Mark Brader
Jan 24, 2012, 2:22:52 PM1/24/12
to
We were asked:
I agree -- and therefore I suggest that the original poster (OP) probably
*was* playing rubber bridge.
To the OP: please realize that most people who post to this newsgroup
mainly play duplicate bridge, and tend to answer questions from that
point of view. The "director" or TD in a duplicate bridge game is
the referee, who is always to be called to the table when there is
an irregularity.
The rules covering penalty cards are the same in rubber bridge and in
duplicate bridge; it's only the procedure of calling the director that's
different.
> As to the correct ruling, the opponents are correct: when you have a
> Major Penalty card [and an honour is never a Minor Penalty card] then
> you must play it at the first legal opportunity so that means you have
> to discard it now.
Indeed. And, as someone else pointed out, when your partner got on lead,
declarer should have been given the opportunity to impose a lead penalty
(in which case the ace would no longer be a penalty card).
--
Mark Brader "All economic statistics are best seen as
Toronto a peculiarly boring form of science fiction..."
m...@vex.net --Paul Krugman
My text in this article is in the public domain.
>> There was a disagreemnet here where the oponents claimed that , in
>> this case , I was bound by the law to discard the exposed ACE in this
>> circumstance and could not use trumps here to ruff.
>>
>> What is the correct procedure here ?
>> this case , I was bound by the law to discard the exposed ACE in this
>> circumstance and could not use trumps here to ruff.
>>
>> What is the correct procedure here ?
David Stevenson writes:
> The procedure is to call the TD and do what he says. Unless you were
> playing rubber bridge it seems completely incredible to me that you were
> arguing with opponents over the correct procedure...
> The procedure is to call the TD and do what he says. Unless you were
> playing rubber bridge it seems completely incredible to me that you were
I agree -- and therefore I suggest that the original poster (OP) probably
*was* playing rubber bridge.
To the OP: please realize that most people who post to this newsgroup
mainly play duplicate bridge, and tend to answer questions from that
point of view. The "director" or TD in a duplicate bridge game is
the referee, who is always to be called to the table when there is
an irregularity.
The rules covering penalty cards are the same in rubber bridge and in
duplicate bridge; it's only the procedure of calling the director that's
different.
> As to the correct ruling, the opponents are correct: when you have a
> Major Penalty card [and an honour is never a Minor Penalty card] then
> you must play it at the first legal opportunity so that means you have
> to discard it now.
declarer should have been given the opportunity to impose a lead penalty
(in which case the ace would no longer be a penalty card).
--
Mark Brader "All economic statistics are best seen as
Toronto a peculiarly boring form of science fiction..."
m...@vex.net --Paul Krugman
My text in this article is in the public domain.
thenoo
Jan 24, 2012, 3:12:21 PM1/24/12
to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:02:07 -0000, "Lorne"
<lorne_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>wrote in message news:do7th79017en2pi3u...@4ax.com...
Thanks for the replies - they have cleared up the difficulties .
<lorne_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>wrote in message news:do7th79017en2pi3u...@4ax.com...
As forthe comments about calling the director , I should have
explained that this incident happened at home where myself and 3
others alternate each week in our sparate houses and play a form of
duplicate called "DOOP".
I'm sure there are many folk on this NG familiar with this - it
consists of lists of these12 duplicate games which have already been
played with the results available to us and checked after we play the
same hands for comparison. It thus enables 4 persons to play
competitive duplicate at home.
There is , therefore , no "director" available unless you could
describe the occasional arrival in the room of one of the wives to
attempt to keep the noise down so that the TV can be reasonably heard
in an adjacent room !
Its not exactly a "world class competition" I'm talking about here
<vbg>
In spite of this , we attempt to follow the rules , but ,as there are
more than one "barrack-room" lawyer present , such questions as this
arise frequently - especially after a few whiskeys !
Thanks for taking the trouble to reply everyone - thats solved one
argument at least !
David Stevenson
Jan 24, 2012, 4:19:41 PM1/24/12
to
thenoo wrote
May I suggest the purchase of a Law book?
Herb
Jan 24, 2012, 4:34:35 PM1/24/12
to
On 1/24/2012 12:12 PM, thenoo wrote:
we attempt to follow the rules , but ,as there are
> more than one "barrack-room" lawyer present , such questions as this
> arise frequently - especially after a few whiskeys !
To satisfy the bar-room [sic] lawyer(s), why not have a copy of the laws
we attempt to follow the rules , but ,as there are
> more than one "barrack-room" lawyer present , such questions as this
> arise frequently - especially after a few whiskeys !
handy? They're freely available to read on-line or to download as a pdf.
They can also be purchased.
Here's a link to the pdf:
http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Laws-of-Duplicate-Bridge.pdf
- Herb
Adam Beneschan
Jan 24, 2012, 5:18:17 PM1/24/12
to
On Jan 24, 1:34 pm, Herb <H...@the.herb.garden> wrote:
> To satisfy the bar-room [sic] lawyer(s), why not have a copy of the laws
> handy? They're freely available to read on-line or to download as a pdf.
> They can also be purchased.
>
> Here's a link to the pdf:
>
> http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Laws-of-Duplicate-Bridge.pdf
This might be better if you're playing a home game without a director:
> To satisfy the bar-room [sic] lawyer(s), why not have a copy of the laws
> handy? They're freely available to read on-line or to download as a pdf.
> They can also be purchased.
>
> Here's a link to the pdf:
>
> http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Laws-of-Duplicate-Bridge.pdf
http://web2.acbl.org/laws/rlaws/lawofcontractbridgecombined_2004.pdf
-- Adam
vic...@iol.ie
Jan 24, 2012, 5:39:20 PM1/24/12
to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:12:21 +0000, thenoo <smi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Replies tp David and Herb,
A good idea - I'l get that d/l- it should solve similar arguments -
but will it be so much fun I wonder ?
My bridge companions are not " NG -competent" and I , as a result,
enjoy a special position as someone who has access to expert bridge
advice ! . Unfortunately this is far from the same thing as being
expert in bridge but it , at least distinguishes me from the others
and one is grateful for small mercies!
Thanks again for the helpful advice.
Replies tp David and Herb,
A good idea - I'l get that d/l- it should solve similar arguments -
but will it be so much fun I wonder ?
My bridge companions are not " NG -competent" and I , as a result,
enjoy a special position as someone who has access to expert bridge
advice ! . Unfortunately this is far from the same thing as being
expert in bridge but it , at least distinguishes me from the others
and one is grateful for small mercies!
Thanks again for the helpful advice.
Herb
Jan 24, 2012, 6:52:15 PM1/24/12
to
games and/or rubber bridge in the back. It's an older version of the
laws - which shouldn't matter given the context.
- Herb
Steve Foster
Jan 24, 2012, 7:24:34 PM1/24/12
to
publish them). Searching the internet for "bridge laws 2007 download"
returns several sensible links.
Björn Westling
Jan 26, 2012, 7:19:04 AM1/26/12
to
Barry Margolin
Jan 26, 2012, 10:30:51 AM1/26/12
to
In article
<774837f9-5508-4c89...@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
The fact that you have to play the penalty card is AI for your partner.
However:
Law 50E3: If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such
information as to damage the non-offending side he shall award an
adjusted score.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
<774837f9-5508-4c89...@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
However:
Law 50E3: If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such
information as to damage the non-offending side he shall award an
adjusted score.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Björn Westling
Jan 26, 2012, 4:49:30 PM1/26/12
to
On 26 Jan, 16:30, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <774837f9-5508-4c89-a516-81fb4daaf...@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
But sometimes when a player wishes that his partner discard the ace
it's not information conveyed by partner having an ace.
Or would you state that if declarer plays a suit where your partner
has a penalty card (in this case the king), and you decide to play the
ace, to prevent your partner from being thrown in is such a case?
> In article
> <774837f9-5508-4c89-a516-81fb4daaf...@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
it's not information conveyed by partner having an ace.
Or would you state that if declarer plays a suit where your partner
has a penalty card (in this case the king), and you decide to play the
ace, to prevent your partner from being thrown in is such a case?
Barry Margolin
Jan 26, 2012, 8:55:06 PM1/26/12
to
In article
<baa61e3c-5ffc-4c87...@n6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
Since the question was about partner wanting you to discard the Ace
(presumably to unblock the suit), I was thinking of a case where partner
gets on lead. So he deliberately plays a suit you're out of, to force
you to discard it.
But your example also works. Any play that could have taken advantage
of knowing which card was exposed seems like it falls under 50E3.
<baa61e3c-5ffc-4c87...@n6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
(presumably to unblock the suit), I was thinking of a case where partner
gets on lead. So he deliberately plays a suit you're out of, to force
you to discard it.
But your example also works. Any play that could have taken advantage
of knowing which card was exposed seems like it falls under 50E3.
Björn Westling
Jan 27, 2012, 10:05:58 AM1/27/12
to
> <baa61e3c-5ffc-4c87-9b6a-a7b3140dc...@n6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
Still, it's not the exposed card that's given the information that it
would be advantageous to discard the penalty card.
would be advantageous to discard the penalty card.
Barry Margolin
Jan 27, 2012, 11:52:22 AM1/27/12
to
In article
<59a72038-95b7-4fe0...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
Are we talking about the same thing? The penalty card *is* the exposed
card, isn't it?
<59a72038-95b7-4fe0...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
card, isn't it?
Björn Westling
Jan 28, 2012, 9:45:55 AM1/28/12
to
> <59a72038-95b7-4fe0-aa2b-bc7ba9e01...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
Yes, but the mere fact that partner has the ace doesn't necessarily gi
ve you the idea that it would be advantageous if partner has to
discard the ace.
ve you the idea that it would be advantageous if partner has to
discard the ace.
Barry Margolin
Jan 28, 2012, 11:00:57 AM1/28/12
to
In article
<5e58f19e-c469-4755...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Maybe not by itself, but perhaps you have an inferential count as well.
If that lets you know that the ace is blocking the suit, you might do
something to force him to discard it.
<5e58f19e-c469-4755...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
If that lets you know that the ace is blocking the suit, you might do
something to force him to discard it.
Dave D
Jan 29, 2012, 5:32:49 AM1/29/12
to
I have David's yellow book, which is great. I would also like to buy a
printed version of the full laws (and regs applicable to Ireland). Any
recommendations? I have downloaded the 2007 laws PDF (EBU version, I
think), which I could print off if required.
--
Dave D
printed version of the full laws (and regs applicable to Ireland). Any
recommendations? I have downloaded the 2007 laws PDF (EBU version, I
think), which I could print off if required.
--
Dave D
blackshoe
Jan 29, 2012, 6:35:59 AM1/29/12
to
Contract Bridge Association of Ireland has an online store (http://cbai.ie/default.asp). The regulations appear to be available on the same site, but for viewing/download, not as a book for sale.
Dave D
Jan 29, 2012, 7:06:28 PM1/29/12
to
--
Dave D
David Stevenson
Feb 2, 2012, 7:39:08 AM2/2/12
to
Dave D wrote
A downloaded version is fine. If you want to buy the book, either
approach the CBAI or NIBU dependent on which part of Ireland you are in,
or just write to EBU Bridge Shop <bridg...@ebu.co.uk>.
Regulations is more difficult since the Irish authorities are not as
careful as the EBU about them - sorry, I am not being anti-Irish, it is
just that I often answer questions from Ireland and have suffered from
trying to find them in the past! Look carefully over the CBAI or NIBU
website.
approach the CBAI or NIBU dependent on which part of Ireland you are in,
or just write to EBU Bridge Shop <bridg...@ebu.co.uk>.
Regulations is more difficult since the Irish authorities are not as
careful as the EBU about them - sorry, I am not being anti-Irish, it is
just that I often answer questions from Ireland and have suffered from
trying to find them in the past! Look carefully over the CBAI or NIBU
website.
Steve Willner
Feb 12, 2012, 2:46:48 PM2/12/12
to
On 2012-01-26 8:55 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> Since the question was about partner wanting you to discard the Ace
> (presumably to unblock the suit), I was thinking of a case where partner
> gets on lead. So he deliberately plays a suit you're out of, to force
> you to discard it.
I don't see why that's illegal. Law 50E is a hopeless muddle, but
> Since the question was about partner wanting you to discard the Ace
> (presumably to unblock the suit), I was thinking of a case where partner
> gets on lead. So he deliberately plays a suit you're out of, to force
> you to discard it.
knowledge that partner must play the penalty card is authorized (50E1),
and the running (but blocked) suit you can see in your own hand is
certainly authorized, so where's the problem?
Declarer can counter this defense by requiring you to lead the suit of
the penalty card. Partner wins his ace but can't return the suit of
your winner. Of course declarer may not realize this is how the cards
lie, but that's just bridge.
> But your example also works. Any play that could have taken advantage
> of knowing which card was exposed seems like it falls under 50E3.
you wouldn't have found the winning defense without the penalty card (or
even that it's "at all probable" you wouldn't have), he can adjust the
score afterwards. But that's an effect of the penalty card itself, not
of the chosen defense being illegal.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
0 new messages