Hi Dave

You might have opened a can of worms
I thought I had this all sorted
but on reading your post and the two laws I have now become confused

My interpretation had always been:
When a player is on lead and partner has a major penalty card:and declarer does not apply any lead restriction:

He must lead the suit he would normally lead
but he may lead an "abnormal" card in that suit (making use of the knowledge partner must play the penalty card)

For example partner has K as a major penalty card in a suit he bid
Obviously no quibbles about leading that suit
And It is Ok to lead a small card from Axx where normally the ace would be led

But thats not what the lawbook says

I would appreciate it if a National Director could clarify this

cheers
Nick

Hi, I'm obviously not a National Director, however my understanding is that the OS cannott benefit from their infraction.
In Nick's example if partner makes an unusual lead the Director may adjust the score under law 16

The WBF commentary on the laws stare;
 "TDs are reminded by Law 50E4 that they have to take away any gain the offenders might produce through a penalty card. In our example, if the defenders get four spade tricks through their infraction but without it would only score three, the TD adjusts the score. "

http://www.worldbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2017LawsCommentary.pdf

Regards,
Kathryn

Thank you Kathryn.

I have read the WBF commentary carefully.  What I understand is that 50E4 is there to reinforce 50E2 & 50E3.  So long as the penalty card is on the table, partner can lead any card - and can take advantage of their knowledge of the penalty card (after all decalarer has the opportunity to prevent that), but once the penalty card is played or returned to hand, knowledge of it is UI.  The simple example of this would be if declarer prohibits the lead of the penalty card suit (penalty card is returned to hand);  then subsequently partner plays in a manner that is influenced by knowledge of the penalty card to their teams benefit - director should award an adjusted score. 

These last two posts from Kathryn and Dave look pretty right to me.

Law 50E4 serves a similar purpose to Laws 27D (insufficient bid) and 23C (comparable call).

In all other cases (someone else might spot another example ) if the offenders appear to gain from their infraction after rectification there is no further adjustment (Law 10C4). Just bad luck for the non-offenders

HI Nick,

Please could you give an example of the offenders gaining after rectification?

Law  10C4 also refers us to 27 and 72C

Thanks,

Kathryn

Hi Kathryn

This is tricky because there is a distinction between “assistance from the infraction” and just getting lucky.

An example of 72C would be West opens 3H
South pass out of turn holding a stack of hearts and wanting to double for penalties

Auction reverts to North who passes as does East.
Law 10C4 says it is legal for South to double now and, not being comparable, North must pass

Mission accomplished

But Law 72C kicks in here even if there is overwhelming evidence South didn’t infringe deliberately. The director would adjust maybe to replacing the double with pass (polling other players might help)

Compare this with South has Axx Axx Axx Q10xx and opens 1NT at RHO turn

RHO now bids 3C
South has no comparable call available and if he doubles North, who might have a weak hand (say just one king) with lots of spades, must pass.

South “couldn’t have known” West had a 3C opening when he bid out of turn so the result stands. South just got lucky with3Cx down 2.

All this could be debatable so I would appreciate others views

Nick

Declarer knew the risk I think?

Thanks Nick, that is a good , undestandable explanation.