Exposed Monarch

[lamford]

I guess the OP didn't mention SB leading his last diamond after ruffing the last heart. If declarer leads a trump then, SB wins, underleads the club, and gets his diamond ruff.

No need. SB does as stated, discards diamonds on the third and fourth hearts. West has to ruff, and can cross to the diamond and play the last heart but then SB ruffs high. There are other defences too, but all require the king of spades as an opening lead, and all require South not to ruff a high heart.

[lamford]

How about 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.

 

the SB has obviously used such information to recognise it as being a good lead (holding QJ). So award an adjusted score.

That seems good, except that South did not choose for it to be led; the director did. All SB did was own up to seeing it, after which it conveyed no information at all as it was immediately led. I like your approach, however, and it is the best so far. However, the normal use of that clause is, for example, when there is a penalty card on the table, rather than actually played. For example, a defender drops the ace of trumps. Someone with Kx might otherwise have covered the queen from dummy, but won't now.

[pran]

That seems good, except that South did not choose for it to be led; the director did. All SB did was own up to seeing it, after which it conveyed no information at all as it was immediately led. I like your approach, however, and it is the best so far. However, the normal use of that clause is, for example, when there is a penalty card on the table, rather than actually played. For example, a defender drops the ace of trumps. Someone with Kx might otherwise have covered the queen from dummy, but won't now.

The fact that a penalty card must be played when legal is AI to the offender's partner.

Therefore the partner is free to use this information when selecting which card in the suit to play so long as the card is visible.

But the partner may not choose which suit to lead (when free to do so) based on the knowledge that the offender has penalty card(s).

 

Also note that Law 50E2 refers to penalty card while Law 50E3 refers to exposed card. I don't think the distinction is accidental.

[lamford]

The fact that a penalty card must be played when legal is AI to the offender's partner.

Therefore the partner is free to use this information when selecting which card in the suit to play so long as the card is visible.

But the partner may not choose which suit to lead (when free to do so) based on the knowledge that the offender has penalty card(s).

 

Also note that Law 50E2 refers to penalty card while Law 50E3 refers to exposed card. I don't think the distinction is accidental.

Given that the card is only exposed for the interval until it is led, and the partner of the person with the exposed card does not get to make a play in that period, it seems impossible to argue that the "information" from the exposed card has damaged the non-offenders.

[nige1]

Given that the card is only exposed for the interval until it is led, and the partner of the person with the exposed card does not get to make a play in that period, it seems impossible to argue that the "information" from the exposed card has damaged the non-offenders.

The exposed card does not become a penalty card until the director rules it to be a penalty card and the offender becomes a defender (if he ever does). But information arising is UI to offender's partner -- here that a ♠ lead would be a good idea. The offender's partner has a choice of action -- He may call the director but isn't obliged to do so. The UI demonstrably suggests calling the director -- a panel of SB's peers would be likely to establish this. The rest is obvious and 50E3 is the nail in the coffin

[barmar]

I don't think anyone has ever interpreted LAs as referring to anything but bidding and card playing decisions. I think it's a stretch to include the decision whether or not to call the TD regarding an irregularity into this. Although I think SB would certainly appreciate your attempt to trip him up this way.

 

In fact, this interpretation seems to be contrary to the spirit of the law that says you don't have to call the TD regarding your own side's infractions. You're essentially saying that if you can tell that calling the TD will benefit you, you must keep silent, because that's the less beneficial LA; conversely, if you can tell that keeping silent would be better, you have to call the TD so that he can mete out the punishment. Why have a law that says you're allowed to keep silent if you can never actually take advantage of it?

[nige1]

In fact, this interpretation seems to be contrary to the spirit of the law that says you don't have to call the TD regarding your own side's infractions. You're essentially saying that if you can tell that calling the TD will benefit you, you must keep silent, because that's the less beneficial LA; conversely, if you can tell that keeping silent would be better, you have to call the TD so that he can mete out the punishment. Why have a law that says you're allowed to keep silent if you can never actually take advantage of it?

For most infractions by your side to which no attention has been drawn, you may choose to call the director if you wish. When UI is involved in that decision, however, UI laws should be relevant.. .

[blackshoe]

Which UI law requires either member of the OS to call the director (absent a disagreement that there may have been UI at all)?

[nige1]

Which UI law requires either member of the OS to call the director (absent a disagreement that there may have been UI at all)?

In case that is a question to me, I've rephrased my opinion in the previous post to make the intended meaning clearer. Sorry for any possible confusion.

[blackshoe]

Still not clear, Nigel. What UI laws should be relevant, and in what way?

[lamford]

Still not clear, Nigel. What UI laws should be relevant, and in what way?

I agree with you and barmar that the UI laws do not prohibit the calling of a director ever. In fact Law 16B is clear, in that it specifies "that may suggest a call or play". I don't think "call" includes the "call of a director", much as I would like to pretend that it did where this particular SB is concerned.

[nige1]

Still not clear, Nigel. What UI laws should be relevant, and in what way?

I agree with you and barmar that the UI laws do not prohibit the calling of a director ever. In fact Law 16B is clear, in that it specifies "that may suggest a call or play". I don't think "call" includes the "call of a director", much as I would like to pretend that it did where this particular SB is concerned.

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

Calling the director is not a universal and inalienable right. For example, the law discourages kibitzers from director-calls.

In the OP case, unauthorised information from the exposed card (coupled with what he can see in his own hand) might suggest to SB that the play of a spade would be good for the defence. He might surmise that his partner is unlikely to come to this conclusion unaided. SB has two legal alternative actions: calling or not calling the director. If SB calls the director, however, the director might rule that the exposed card become a penalty card that must be played immediately, damaging declarer's prospects. Hence the director-call is an action that might demonstrably be suggested by unauthorised information.

I readily concede that all this is unnecessary now that weejonnie has drawn our attention to the more specific L50E3.

FWIW, IMO, the law should be changed to mandate that a player in receipt of such information must call the director.

[lamford]

Calling the director is not a universal and inalienable right. For example, the law discourages kibitzers from director-calls.

In the OP case, unauthorised information from the exposed card (coupled with what he can see in his his hand) might suggest to SB that the initial lead (play) of a spade would be good for the defence. He might surmise that his partner is unlikely to come to this conclusion unaided. SB has two legal alternative actions: calling or not calling the director. If SB calls the director, however, the director might rule that the exposed card become a penalty card that must be played immediately, damaging declarer's prospects. Hence the director-call is an action that might be demonstrably suggested by unauthorised information.

I readily concede that all this is a bit unnecessary now that weejonnie has drawn our attention to the more specific 50E3.

I think weejonnie's idea is the best, but I remain unconvinced. I don't think a penalty card that has to be led immediately can be said to "convey information", or any penalty card would. The only logical interpretation of 50E3 is that the card conveyed no information as a penalty card, as it was led immediately. And I don't agree with your interpretation either - a director call is not a "call or play" within the accepted meaning of "call". I don't like a 12B1 adjustment either, because there is a specific penalty, and it should therefore be applied, and the offenders just get lucky.

 

If the person had dropped the king of spades while writing down the contract and everyone had seen it, it would have been led perforce, and it would just have been Rueful Rabbit Randomness and nobody would dream of adjusting.