[pran]

aguahombre, on 2015-July-16, 15:33, said:

I fail to see the link between the harshness of Declarer's choices and the inequity of allowing a low Club lead with the EI that partner has the club Ace. Whatever Declarer chooses cannot overcome the damage from that knowledge.

Oh yes,
if Declarer requests a Club lead from West then the ♣Ace ceases to be a penalty card and the knowledge that East has this card is UI to West.

Consequently West may not lead a small club because that would most certainly be suggested by the (now) UI that East has the Ace.

[blackshoe]

The minute people are quoting refers to earlier determinations by the LC. I found this, from the minutes of the meeting of 24 August 1998, at Lille:

Quote

The Committee considered the question of information arising from possession of a penalty card. Information that the player must play the penalty card as the law requires is authorised and partner may choose the card to lead from the suit on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may lead small from K Q J x when partner’s penalty card is the Ace). Information based on sight of partner’s penalty card is unauthorised so that, for example, the player may not choose to lead the suit if the suit is suggested by the penalty card and play of a different suit is a logical alternative.

I note that this minute was issued when the 1997 laws were in effect. Law 50E did not exist then. It seems then that prior to 2007 it was legal for a player holding KQJ2 to lead the two when his partner has the Ace as a MPC, provided there was no LA to the lead of that suit. If he gained by that, so be it.

Law 50E changes things. In the case at hand, lead of the deuce gains, 50E3 comes into play, and the director adjusts the score. Maybe the law is an ass; maybe there's a better way. None of that matters. The law is what it is. Until the next revision.

[Cascade]

aguahombre, on 2015-July-16, 15:33, said:

I fail to see the link between the harshness of Declarer's choices and the inequity of allowing a low Club lead with the EI that partner has the club Ace. Whatever Declarer chooses cannot overcome the damage from that knowledge.

I am disagreeing with the reasoning. Although there is a case surely that if a penalty is imposed from a free choice that should be enough. The game is not deterministic. Declarer presumably thought they made a good choice. Should they really get to revisit it if it turns out badly?

[lamford]

pran, on 2015-July-16, 11:57, said:

But to the core of this "problem" I challenge you to rule if West had made his opening lead in any of the suits other than Clubs and with that lead set the contract.

Even if you consider leads other than clubs as LAs, the problem is that only a low club beats the contract when East has the ace of clubs as an MPC. On the lead of any other suit, declarer will cross to South and lead a club towards the ten of clubs. This Morton Fork's West, and he has to choose between the Scylla of playing high, when SB can develop a club trick, and the Charybdis of playing low, when the TD would adjust the score, again under 50E3, despite the WBFLC minute allowing him to play low on the first club. SB would be careful not to make the first club lead from dummy, when West will indeed be entitled to play low on his partner's ace of clubs.

[lamford]

Cascade, on 2015-July-16, 23:51, said:

Declarer presumably thought they made a good choice. Should they really get to revisit it if it turns out badly?

Yes. Law 50E3 gives them a second bite at the cherry. And so it should. In addition to East's infraction of exposing a card, West used the UI of the rank and suit of that card - other information derived from the sight of the card.

There is a question here as to whether there should be one adjusted score or two. Should East-West get to keep their good result because of TD error in not explaining Law 50E3 at the time?