A Tale of Two Loots

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=saktha642djt864ca&w=s9873hj97dk3c9753&n=sq52h3dq952ckqt42&e=sj64hkqt85da7cj86&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1d(unbalanced)p3h(SPL)p4h(kickback)p4n(1/4)p5c(QD?)p6d(yes)ppp]399|300[/hv]

Neither East nor North shone on this other hand from the Speedball teams at a national congress. South was again the SB lookalike, and E/W walked out of the event after this hand. The delays from that action, from finding a stand-in pair (And friends, the story is true. I know, I was that soldier) and from two rulings caused the fifth round to be cancelled.

 

North gave the wrong response to kickback and South drove to slam. East led the ace of diamonds out of turn, attempting to cut down on ruffs in view of his heart holding, and South, our SB friend, called the TD despite it being a Speedball. This time the TD was careful to cross every "t" and dot every "i", clearly explaining all the UI implications, and declarer elected to have the ace of diamonds left face up, but West could lead what he liked. West led the eight of spades. Dummy played low and East played the jack and South won with the ace and played a low diamond and West was unclear whether he could play low or not, but did. After 6♦ had gone one light, SB wanted the TD again. He said that playing the king of diamonds was an LA for West - South could have ATx AQxx Axxxx Ax or the like and rising with the king of diamonds was an LA. West thought he was entitled to know that East had to play the ace of diamonds on this trick, but SB disagreed and asked the TD unusually politely for a ruling. He argued West had to pretend that he could not see the ace of diamonds, and that West could only know that East had some unspecified penalty card. How do you rule?

[Cyberyeti]

Range for the splinter ?

 

W can work out that S was expecting an extra keycard in dummy, he can't have the hand you gave as he'd be looking at 7 opposite 1+Q. Were questions asked of the 4N bid ? as N should have bid 6♣ over 5♣ to show the K♣ as well as the Q♦ for most people (but might not if partner told him he was expecting 1/4).

 

Normal play would be for declarer to cash the A or play towards it if he had it, so it looks like a ♦ must be the penalty card, but is it A or smaller ?

 

Does the law seriously require you to get this wrong ? If so it's an ass.

[lamford]

Range for the splinter ?

 

W can work out that S was expecting an extra keycard in dummy, he can't have the hand you gave as he'd be looking at 7 opposite 1+Q. Were questions asked of the 4N bid ? as N should have bid 6♣ over 5♣ to show the K♣ as well as the Q♦ for most people (but might not if partner told him he was expecting 1/4).

 

Normal play would be for declarer to cash the A or play towards it if he had it, so it looks like a ♦ must be the penalty card, but is it A or smaller ?

 

Does the law seriously require you to get this wrong ? If so it's an ass.

This was a Speedball, and no questions were asked nor any explanations offered. Splinters might be 9-11 or so. Only 5 minutes are allowed per hand. West might guess that South expected a key card, although they might have been playing 41 30 after kickback. If North has shown 0 key cards, he should not show the king of clubs - he needs something for a splinter surely and grand is a bit pushy! I think South might well have bid ATx Axxx Axxxx A this way, and ace and another diamond is no better than a low one if they have found the killing lead; if someone might duck with ♦Kx, better in fact. No, I don't agree the Law is an ass here; I think it is pretty draconian on LOOTs, and declarers have been exercising the wrong options for years. It must almost always be right to just have the lead as a MPC. The answer is not to lead out of turn. East breached two laws, 41A and 72B1. He deserved his bad result, if you rule that 6♦ makes.

 

And the play of the K♦ only has to be an LA, without the UI, for it be imposed. That roughly means that 20% of players in a Speedball would seriously consider it (without the LOOT) and 10% of player might play it. A no-brainer.

[campboy]

I think that the law (and particularly the minute pran quoted in the other thread) is clear here that you are allowed to play low. If this means that NS are damaged by the LOOT (say East led the singleton ace) then perhaps there is a law-23 route to redress, but here there was no way for EW to go wrong without a major penalty card.

[lamford]

I think that the law (and particularly the minute pran quoted in the other thread) is clear here that you are allowed to play low. If this means that NS are damaged by the LOOT (say East led the singleton ace) then perhaps there is a law-23 route to redress, but here there was no way for EW to go wrong without a major penalty card.

 

The relevant sentence seems to be the last -- a diamond lead playing low is suggested by the sight of partner's ace, and another suit (hearts) play (the king) is a logical alternative, so he must lead another suit. play the king

I think that the law (and particularly the minute pran quoted in the other thread) is clear here that you are forced to play the king. Either the fact that partner has the ace of diamonds is authorised or it is not. If it is UI, then the laws are (fairly) clear on your obligations, and the interpretation by the WBFLC does not change that. Basically, you are allowed to play low only if it is the only LA.

 

Surely you do not think that the minute means that the rank of the penalty card is AI, but the suit is UI? And surely you do not think that West would be allowed to play low if East had the singleton ace of diamonds as a MPC (say swap a small heart with South for the small diamond with East with all the other facts the same)? I consider the WBFLC minute unhelpful, as it contradicts itself in its last sentence.

[pran]

 

 

I think that the law (and particularly the minute pran quoted in the other thread) is clear here that you are forced to play the king. Either the fact that partner has the ace of diamonds is authorised or it is not. If it is UI, then the laws are (fairly) clear on your obligations, and the interpretation by the WBFLC does not change that. Basically, you are allowed to play low only if it is the only LA.

 

Surely you do not think that the minute means that the rank of the penalty card is AI, but the suit is UI?

The way I read the laws and the minute in question is that you are not allowed to let partner's penalty card influence your choice of which suit to lead.

 

However, once you have (legally) decided to lead (or play) a card in the suit of your partner's penalty card you are free to select which of your own cards to play from knowledge of the rank of partner's penalty card in that suit.

[campboy]

The problem is that you have two pieces of information, that partner has the ace of diamonds and that he must play it. The former is UI, the latter AI, but it is not always clear what the implications are because you cannot get rid of the UI without taking away the AI as well.

 

In the other thread, a diamond lead is right if partner has the ace, even if he does not have to play it. It is therefore entirely the UI which suggests leading a diamond, and so the diamond lead is not permitted (assuming a heart lead is an LA). In this case, however, playing low is not necessary just because partner has the ace. It is only necessary because he must play the ace. It is therefore the AI, not the UI, which makes playing low necessary.

 

I agree with pran's reading of the minute. The minute certainly makes it very clear that it is ok to play a lower card than normal because you know partner is forced to play high.

[lamford]

The way I read the laws and the minute in question is that you are not allowed to let partner's penalty card influence your choice of which suit to lead.

 

However, once you have (legally) decided to lead (or play) a card in the suit of your partner's penalty card you are free to select which of your own cards to play from knowledge of the rank of partner's penalty card in that suit.

The EBU go into more detail than the WBFLC, and I think they are right:

 

A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this card and information that the player has the card. Initially the underlead from KQJx to partner’s Ax is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3 applies.

 

The player must convince the Director that he has not gained from the information that the player possesses the card.

We do not need to (and indeed cannot) use Law 23 to provide redress, as the infraction has not gained a trick. In this example the ace of diamonds conveyed the information that declarer did not have Axxx(x) and therefore it has helped West to select to a small diamond. In the example in the minutes, if low from KQJx opposite Ax makes a difference, then it would surely be disallowed, so the example is a hopeless one.

 

And I agree with campboy that there are two pieces of information; one is UI and the other is AI. However, that happens a lot. We can use the AI if the UI does not prevent us from using it.

[campboy]

The EBU go into more detail than the WBFLC, and I think they are right:

 

A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this card and information that the player has the card. Initially the underlead from KQJx to partner’s Ax is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3 applies.

 

The player must convince the Director that he has not gained from the information that the player possesses the card.

We do not need to (and indeed cannot) use Law 23 to provide redress, as the infraction has not gained a trick. In this example the ace of diamonds conveyed the information that declarer did not have Axxx(x) and therefore it has helped West to select to a small diamond. In the example in the minutes, if low from KQJx opposite Ax makes a difference, then it would surely be disallowed, so the example is a hopeless one.

Yes, I should have quoted 50E3 rather than 23. If defence gain by not blocking a suit because the ace was a penalty card then we would adjust the score under that law, and in this example if it was singleton we would adjust. But in the actual case the NOS have not been damaged by the exposed card. The OS have merely used the AI of the penalty card requirements to mitigate the damage to themselves of having a penalty card, which IMO is exactly the reason those requirements are AI in the first place.

[lamford]

In this case, however, playing low is not necessary just because partner has the ace. It is only necessary because he must play the ace.

Playing low is always at least as good as playing the king when partner has the ace. Playing the king is always correct when partner does not have the ace. Playing low is necessary when partner has a singleton ace.

 

So the NOS have been damaged by the sight of the ace whether or not it is singleton. It seems, however, that the WBFLC intend the rank of the card to be authorised but not the suit. If that is the case, you could not adjust when East has a singleton ace, as he surely "could not have known" the infraction would benefit his side.

 

50E3 is fine as it stands, and there is no need for the inconsistent WBFLC minute.

[campboy]

The NOS has not been damaged, so 50E3 cannot be used to adjust the score in this case. "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." Here the infraction is the lead out of turn, and the table result was exactly what it would have been without the infraction.

[Cyberyeti]

This was a Speedball, and no questions were asked nor any explanations offered. Splinters might be 9-11 or so. Only 5 minutes are allowed per hand. West might guess that South expected a key card, although they might have been playing 41 30 after kickback. If North has shown 0 key cards, he should not show the king of clubs - he needs something for a splinter surely and grand is a bit pushy! I think South might well have bid ATx Axxx Axxxx A this way, and ace and another diamond is no better than a low one if they have found the killing lead; if someone might duck with ♦Kx, better in fact. No, I don't agree the Law is an ass here; I think it is pretty draconian on LOOTs, and declarers have been exercising the wrong options for years. It must almost always be right to just have the lead as a MPC. The answer is not to lead out of turn. East breached two laws, 41A and 72B1. He deserved his bad result, if you rule that 6♦ makes.

 

And the play of the K♦ only has to be an LA, without the UI, for it be imposed. That roughly means that 20% of players in a Speedball would seriously consider it (without the LOOT) and 10% of player might play it. A no-brainer.

It seems people have to play brainlessly in a speedball according to you.

 

With the hand you give, win the spade, ♥A/ruff, ♣KQ ditching spades is how you'd start, then play trumps and you probably need them 2-2 or stiff K unless ♣J drops so play Ax.

 

It appears that if the laws should be interpreted as you suggest then you're not punishing the offence, you're handing the NOS a winning lottery ticket and going waaaay beyond repairing the damage.

[fbuijsen]

The reasoning seems weird. When choosing his lead west is allowed to know that partner has a large penalty card in the ♦A, but later on in the play he is no longer allowed to know it is the ♦A, but only that a penalty card exists?

[lamford]

It seems people have to play brainlessly in a speedball according to you.

 

With the hand you give, win the spade, ♥A/ruff, ♣KQ ditching spades is how you'd start, then play trumps and you probably need them 2-2 or stiff K unless ♣J drops so play Ax.

If South has ATxx Axxx Axxx A or ATx Axx Axxxx Ax, you have already found the killing lead, and you are now letting the contract through by ducking.

 

It seems some people defend brainlessly when they are posting on here. And how else would you expect declarer to play here; he is missing the ace, king of trumps? He did brilliantly to let West lead anything he liked.

 

And it does not make any sense that you are allowed to know the rank of a MPC but not its suit. The WBFLC minute was ill-considered and contradictory.

[lamford]

The reasoning seems weird. When choosing his lead west is allowed to know that partner has a large penalty card in the ♦A, but later on in the play he is no longer allowed to know it is the ♦A, but only that a penalty card exists?

No, the minute suggests that in choosing his opening lead West is not allowed to know that the penalty card is the ace of diamonds, but later on in the play he is allowed to know that its rank is an ace, but only when diamonds are played by either side. If West leads, he is allowed to lead small from Kx, if his partner has the ace of that suit as a MPC, even in a side suit! Poppycock.

[lamford]

The NOS has not been damaged, so 50E3 cannot be used to adjust the score in this case. "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." Here the infraction is the lead out of turn, and the table result was exactly what it would have been without the infraction.

You cannot use the infraction of the LOOT to adjust, I agree. What you are adjusting for is the use of UI to play low from Kx in a position where rising is an LA. If rising is not an LA, you are fine. You decide on LAs as though there had been no infraction, but I am sure you already knew that. The adjustment is under 16B, reinforced by 50E3. The UI is the information that partner has the ace of diamonds. The AI is that he has to play it on this trick.

[Cyberyeti]

If South has ATxx Axxx Axxx A or ATx Axx Axxxx Ax, you have already found the killing lead, and you are now letting the contract through by ducking.

 

It seems some people defend brainlessly when they are posting on here.

 

And it does not make any sense that you are allowed to know the rank of a MPC but not its suit. The WBFLC minute was ill-considered and contradictory.

 

Yes but S has a much better line so wouldn't play like that was the point I was making.

[lamford]

Yes but S has a much better line so wouldn't play like that was the point I was making.

With either of the other hands I gave, South has no better line than trying to find West with Kx of diamonds suffering from acute attention disorder. Even clubs 3-3 or the jack falling would not help him, as there will still be a loser outside trumps. But you do not let West off because South did not choose a better line. All that is required to force him to play the king of diamonds is that it is an LA. Without any infraction.

[fbuijsen]

No, the minute suggests that in choosing his opening lead West is not allowed to know that the penalty card is the ace of diamonds, but later on in the play he is allowed to know that its rank is an ace, but only when diamonds are played by either side. If West leads, he is allowed to lead small from Kx, if his partner has the ace of that suit as a MPC, even in a side suit! Poppycock.

 

I am copying over the minute from pran's post in the other thread to make it a bit easier to discuss:

 

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. <br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">

This says, explicitly, you are allowed to lead a small card because you know partner is obliged to play the ace. The only way I can interpret law 50E and the minute/comment with it, is that west (i.e. partner of the MPC holder) is, in all situations, allowed to know that when ♦ are played, partner will play the ♦A, and thus play low. What is not allowed, is deduce the best lead (or play) based on the knowledge of east's possession of the ♦A. (Say for example that based on the bidding he knows they have to cash their ace immediately, but he can't know for sure in which suit their side is holding an ace).

[ggwhiz]

Two threads in a row confirming that Directing involves standing between two 6 year olds with one ice cream cone. At least there was only one child in these. You're lucky.

[Cyberyeti]

With either of the other hands I gave, South has no better line than trying to find West with Kx of diamonds suffering from acute attention disorder. Even clubs 3-3 or the jack falling would not help him, as there will still be a loser outside trumps. But you do not let West off because South did not choose a better line. All that is required to force him to play the king of diamonds is that it is an LA. Without any infraction.

I was talking about the line on the hand with a 5-1 club fit and no you don't have a loser outside trumps, it will go on the 5th club all being well.

 

Also even in the 5-2 case, a stiff king of diamonds and 3-3 clubs will get you home. Isn't it better to go for the legitimate shot ?

 

S choosing an odd line should get you off as you assume he's douing it for a valid reason (maybe not in a speedball, depends who it is and how many they've had).

[lamford]

The only way I can interpret law 50E and the minute/comment with it, is that west (i.e. partner of the MPC holder) is, in all situations, allowed to know that when ♦ are played, partner will play the ♦A, and thus play low.

I was surprised to see campboy upvoting you on the post containing this comment, as he would adjust if the ace of diamonds, a MPC, was singleton, but you think "in all situations" he is allowed to play low.

[campboy]

I was surprised to see campboy upvoting you on the post containing this comment, as he would adjust if the ace of diamonds, a MPC, was singleton, but you think "in all situations" he is allowed to play low.

So what? I think you are allowed to play low, but then would adjust if the ace is singleton under 50E3. The basis for the adjustment is that NOS were damaged by the exposed card, not that there was any subsequent irregularity. Since the number of tricks NOS would take without the LOOT is uncertain, I would give a weighted ruling.

[lamford]

So what? I think you are allowed to play low, but then would adjust if the ace is singleton under 50E3. The basis for the adjustment is that NOS were damaged by the exposed card, not that there was any subsequent irregularity. Since the number of tricks NOS would take without the LOOT is uncertain, I would give a weighted ruling.

So what "other information" derived from the sight of the penalty card are they talking about in 50E2? Do you think it is authorised that his partner has the ace of diamonds, or only authorised if either side leads a diamond? In this example, the reason he chose to play low is that his partner has the ace of diamonds, not that he has to play it on this trick. If the penalty card had been the jack of diamonds, he would have risen. Because his partner might not have the ace of diamonds, not because the jack of diamonds needs to be played on this trick.

[fbuijsen]

So what "other information" derived from the sight of the penalty card are they talking about in 50E2? Do you think it is authorised that his partner has the ace of diamonds, or only authorised if either side leads a diamond? In this example, the reason he chose to play low is that his partner has the ace of diamonds, not that he has to play it on this trick. If the penalty card had been the jack of diamonds, he would have risen. Because his partner might not have the ace of diamonds, not because the jack of diamonds needs to be played on this trick.

 

He is authorized to know that partner has a MPC and that it is the ♦A. That makes playing the ♦K is simply absurd (unless it's some kind of unblocking play), since he knows partner is gonna play the A anyway. It is also authorized not to lead a suit trying to give partner a ruff, when you know he won't be allowed to ruff (because he has to play the ♦A. (EDIT: scratch that remark -- I'd temporarily forgotten that diamonds are trump ....)

 

What is unauthorized is, for example, deciding your lead based on the knowledge of partner's possession of the ♦A. Let's say the contract is 7NT, and it is clear from the bidding that declarer has a long running suit that will give him 13 tricks from the top. So the opening lead needs to find partner's ace (if he has any). Now it would be really helpful to lead the ♦A out of turn, if it allows partner to find the diamond lead (it's a bad example, I know, since declarer can simply forbid the diamond lead).

 

Campboy's reason for adjustment, as I understand it, is still different: it's not because of th use of UI, but because exposing the ♦A has altered the way in which the hand played out from what would have happened without that offense, and is therefore damaging the NOS. This is disputable, since arguably the declarer could have prevented the damage by choosing a different option to handle the LOOT, but it is not about UI.

Edited August 20, 2013 by fbuijsen