[Chris3875]

I was called to the table yesterday when there had been simultaneous faced opening leads from both defenders. I ruled under Law 58 - is that correct?

The correct person to lead played the Ace of Spades, her partner a small diamond. I ruled that the Ace of Spades was the correct lead and the diamond a penalty card. After the Ace won, I gave declarer the choice of diamond, no diamond or any lead. Declarer asked me whether he should have been given the choice of accepting the diamond as the opening lead and also whether he could choose to be dummy. I said no.

[blackshoe]

I agree with your ruling.

[mycroft]

Law 58A said:

Simultaneous Plays by Two Players
A lead or play made simultaneously with another player’s legal lead or play is deemed to be subsequent to it.

Seems pretty unambiguous. Correct lead is legal, wrong lead is a play out of turn (and an unestablished revoke, if he has spades) Law 57A doesn't apply as the play out of turn is after partner has played.
I would read it the same way you did, I think.

[Chris3875]

I didn't even consider the unestablished revoke idea - but surely if the small diamond stays on the table as a penalty card, the person then follows suit with his spade and the diamond remains as a penalty card as per normal?

[blackshoe]

I think the sequence of laws the TD should follow is this:

Law 58A: simultaneous plays by two players, one of which is in turn and hence legal. The other's player's play is deemed to be subsequent to the legal play. Now what?
Law 45C1: A defender's card held so that his partner can see its face must be played to the current trick.
Law 61: failure to follow suit when able constitutes a revoke.
Law 62A: A revoke discovered before it is established must be corrected.
Law 62B: Player must subsitute a legal card.
Here's the rub. Shall he be required to do this before declarer plays from the second hand? I think not, and cite Law 44 as specifying the correct order of play, but I would at least listen to arguments otherwise. In any case:
Law 62B1: the withdrawn card becomes a MPC.

And yes, with a MPC on the table, the player must first follow suit if able, and second play the MPC. Nothing new or odd there, I think.

[aguahombre]

and how does the lead (by the wrong defender) itself, whether it is a penalty card or not, fit in there?

Is there not UI to the defender who was actually on lead ---what their spot card leads mean, and just the fact that the offender chose to lead that suit?

[blackshoe]

Law 16D2 said:

For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information.

[pran]

Chris3875, on Jun 30 2010, 01:04 AM, said:

I didn't even consider the unestablished revoke idea - but surely if the small diamond stays on the table as a penalty card, the person then follows suit with his spade and the diamond remains as a penalty card as per normal?

Sure (and a major penalty card it is because it was deliberately played, not accidentally dropped)

[pran]

aguahombre, on Jun 30 2010, 02:26 AM, said:

and how does the lead (by the wrong defender) itself, whether it is a penalty card or not, fit in there?

Is there not UI to the defender who was actually on lead ---what their spot card leads mean, and just the fact that the offender chose to lead that suit?

Simultaneous leads! How can the correct lead have been influenced in any way by UI from the incorrect lead?

[MBV53]

law 58A applies.if both the leads[faced] are of same suit,it is deemed that opening lead and played to that trick. Because of different suits offender's card become Major PC.
your Ruling is Right!

[bluejak]

pran, on Jun 30 2010, 08:34 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Jun 30 2010, 02:26 AM, said:

Is there not UI to the defender who was actually on lead ---what their spot card leads mean, and just the fact that the offender chose to lead that suit?

Simultaneous leads! How can the correct lead have been influenced in any way by UI from the incorrect lead?

He could be affected later in the hand by the unauthorised information of what his partner had led.

[pran]

bluejak, on Jun 30 2010, 02:02 PM, said:

pran, on Jun 30 2010, 08:34 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Jun 30 2010, 02:26 AM, said:

Is there not UI to the defender who was actually on lead ---what their spot card leads mean, and just the fact that the offender chose to lead that suit?

Simultaneous leads! How can the correct lead have been influenced in any way by UI from the incorrect lead?

He could be affected later in the hand by the unauthorised information of what his partner had led.

Of course.

But that is covered by the laws on exposed and (major) penalty card(s). What is the problem?

(This was a question on the correct lead being influenced by UI from the simultaneous incorrect lead.)

[aguahombre]

pran, on Jun 30 2010, 07:54 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 30 2010, 02:02 PM, said:

pran, on Jun 30 2010, 08:34 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Jun 30 2010, 02:26 AM, said:

Is there not UI to the defender who was actually on lead ---what their spot card leads mean, and just the fact that the offender chose to lead that suit?

Simultaneous leads! How can the correct lead have been influenced in any way by UI from the incorrect lead?

He could be affected later in the hand by the unauthorised information of what his partner had led.

Of course.

But that is covered by the laws on exposed and (major) penalty card(s). What is the problem?

(This was a question on the correct lead being influenced by UI from the simultaneous incorrect lead.)

No, Pran --David got my question right. It has to be very difficult to distinguish later play based on properly obtained information -- from later play in-part based on the fact that the offender wanted to lead that particular card at the start.

[blackshoe]

pran, on Jun 30 2010, 09:54 AM, said:

(This was a question on the correct lead being influenced by UI from the simultaneous incorrect lead.)

Was it? I didn't read it that way. It looks to me more like a question about whether there is UI which the correct leader must take into account in his later plays. Don't forget that the correct lead was an ace — the leader can be expected (most of the time) to retain the lead.

If your interpretation, Sven, is correct, then the answer to the question is "no".

[mjj29]

aguahombre, on Jun 30 2010, 09:12 AM, said:

No, Pran --David got my question right. It has to be very difficult to distinguish later play based on properly obtained information -- from later play in-part based on the fact that the offender wanted to lead that particular card at the start.

Well, you get the lead restrictions if it's still a major penalty card at that point and those rules refer you to L16 to deal with any other UI if it's not.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Jun 30 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

pran, on Jun 30 2010, 09:54 AM, said:

(This was a question on the correct lead being influenced by UI from the simultaneous incorrect lead.)

Was it? I didn't read it that way. It looks to me more like a question about whether there is UI which the correct leader must take into account in his later plays. Don't forget that the correct lead was an ace — the leader can be expected (most of the time) to retain the lead.

If your interpretation, Sven, is correct, then the answer to the question is "no".

The card led out of turn simultaneously with the correct lead is deemed to having been played afterwards (Law 58A), and when the offender is the partner to the player that made the correct lead it is still a play out of turn (at his RHO's turn to play).

Therefore it is initially a card exposed irregularly, and this card becomes a major penalty card (Law 50).

Even if it is a card in the suit led, or if the offender has no card in the suit led so that this penalty card must be played to the trick in progress, it was still a major penalty card during the brief period that passed from the exposure to it's eventual disposition and the provisions in Law 50E still fully applies to any information that is a result of the lead out of turn.

I really do not understand how this can be so difficult? Isn't it just a matter of being able to read the applicable laws?

The only situation where a card led out of turn does not become a penalty card at all is if it is led simultaneously with a card correctly led by RHO, and the card so led out of turn can legally be played to the same trick.

Edit - added: And of course when the lead out of turn is (legally) accepted by offender's LHO.

[blackshoe]

We seem to be talking past each other. All I'm saying is that yes, there is UI to the player who made the correct lead from his partner who led out of turn and whose card becomes a MPC. That UI will affect future plays, but it does not affect the lead to the current trick, as that lead has already been made, and in fact was made before there was any UI.

When I referred to "your interpretation" I was referring to your interpretation of the meaning of the question, not your interpretation of the laws. Does that clear it up?

[pran]

blackshoe, on Jun 30 2010, 10:05 PM, said:

We seem to be talking past each other. All I'm saying is that yes, there is UI to the player who made the correct lead from his partner who led out of turn and whose card becomes a MPC. That UI will affect future plays, but it does not affect the lead to the current trick, as that lead has already been made, and in fact was made before there was any UI.

Of course.

blackshoe, on Jun 30 2010, 10:05 PM, said:

When I referred to "your interpretation" I was referring to your interpretation of the meaning of the question, not your interpretation of the laws. Does that clear it up?

Fair enough