mjswinona Posted September 12, 2014 Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 West is declarer in a spade contract. South leads the Ace of clubs, out of turn at trick one. The director is called to the table and options are explained. West refuses a club lead. North leads a diamond, South picks up the club Ace and dummy is tabled, showing 4 clubs to the Queen. West wins the diamond lead in dummy and takes a losing spade finesse. North now plays the King of clubs from K,x, continues with a small club, won by partner's Ace and then ruffs the club return. The club King would never be led unless North knows partner holds the Ace. The director is called to the table and makes no adjustment. Is this the correct ruling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted September 12, 2014 Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 "Deja Vu, all over again." Yogi Berra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahydra Posted September 12, 2014 Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 Did anyone ask North why he led the CK, x? One shouldn't just assume "the CK will never be led" without evidence supporting it. ahydra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjswinona Posted September 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 Did anyone ask North why he led the CK, x? One shouldn't just assume "the CK will never be led" without evidence supporting it. ahydraThe Queen of clubs is on the board. If West holds the club Ace, North gives up a trick by leading the King. The only reason to lead the King is to expect partner to hold the ace. Clubs were never mentioned during the auction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerE Posted September 12, 2014 Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 That's not enough to say it is the only reason. What if a ♣ ruff is the only possible way of beating the contract? Especially at IMPs you really really don't care about the overtrick when partner is broke so it may well be the only logical play. That's not to say I'm especially happy with N's actions, but I'm not going to shoot him without hearing him out first. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjswinona Posted September 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 That's not enough to say it is the only reason. What if a ♣ ruff is the only possible way of beating the contract? Especially at IMPs you really really don't care about the overtrick when partner is broke so it may well be the only logical play. That's not to say I'm especially happy with N's actions, but I'm not going to shoot him without hearing him out first.The issue here is that N has full knowledge partner has the ace. The game was mp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted September 12, 2014 Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/67695-unauthorised-information-or-not/page__p__807945__fromsearch__1#entry807945 does not apply here since in that case the lead out of turn was caused by the Declaring side. Laws 50E 2 & 3 seem to govern this case. The knowledge that the Club Ace exists in partner's hand is UI to the defender, and there would have to be undisputed AI from the auction and play to the point in question that partner has the Club Ace --- with any doubt going to the Declaring side --- in order to allow the play as described in this thread. IMO, the TD making this decision owes the NOS some elaboration about why he ruled the way he did. Did he give any? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted September 12, 2014 Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 This thread should have been in "Simple rulings". The only way North can convince anybody that his lead of ♣K was not suggested by the knowledge that South has ♣A would be if South during the auction has encouraged that lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted September 12, 2014 Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 This thread should have been in "Simple rulings".How can it be a simple ruling when the concensus is that the original TD got it wrong? The only way North can convince anybody that his lead of ♣K was not suggested by the knowledge that South has ♣A would be if South during the auction has encouraged that lead.North could convince me if a poll of his peers showed that almost all would play ♣K (without knowing about ♣A). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted September 12, 2014 Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 I think we need the full hand, the auction and the strength of the players. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 12, 2014 Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 What Paul said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjswinona Posted September 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 I think we need the full hand, the auction and the strength of the players.All non-vul. Dealer W. Auction: P,1H,X,2H,2S,all pass. North holds Axx, AQxxx, J10x, Kx. East holds QJxx, Kx, Axx, Q10xx. Experienced players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 All non-vul. Dealer W. Auction: P,1H,X,2H,2S,all pass. North holds Axx, AQxxx, J10x, Kx. East holds QJxx, Kx, Axx, Q10xx. Experienced players. Honestly I see absolutely no reason other than UI why North should now lead a Club? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 All non-vul. Dealer W. Auction: P,1H,X,2H,2S,all pass. North holds Axx, AQxxx, J10x, Kx. East holds QJxx, Kx, Axx, Q10xx. Experienced players.Let us create a sensible layout consistent with the auction where the king of clubs switch is clearly wrong, although I know this is not the layout as I have seen partner's ace of clubs! But I must pretend that I missed my appointment at Specsavers. Something like the following would be plausible:[hv=pc=n&s=s84hjt4dkq63c9543&w=skt76h973d982caj2&n=sa52haq865djt4ck6&e=sqj93hk2da75cqt87&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hd2h2sppp]399|300[/hv]We are not told the form of scoring, but on a layout something like the above, switching to the king of clubs costs an overtrick, so is definitely wrong at matchpoints, and takes advantage of the UI that partner has the ace of clubs. I would be minded to adjust therefore to best play without the king of clubs switch, erring if necessary in favour of the non-offenders. It sounds like 2S= is correct. I am sure I could construct layouts where the king of clubs switch costs the contract too. It looks like continuing diamonds is the normal continuation, and the one that does not take advantage of the UI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 We are not told the form of scoring...... The game was mp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 How can it be a simple ruling when the concensus is that the original TD got it wrong?He simply got a simple ruling wrong :rolleyes: . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 Did the director mention that knowledge that South has the Ace is UI to North? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 Did the director mention that knowledge that South has the Ace is UI to North?Good point. If not, then it would be director error, with a split score which can of course be unbalanced. OP stated "the options are explained", but that does not mean the UI was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjswinona Posted September 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 Good point. If not, then it would be director error, with a split score which can of course be unbalanced. OP stated "the options are explained", but that does not mean the UI was. Director did not mention UI. only that N could not lead a club until he lost the lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted September 14, 2014 Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 Director did not mention UI. only that N could not lead a club until he lost the lead.I know that directors in the UK are taught to explain the UI of a withdrawn card, but, on reflection, I do not think North gets redress for his use of UI because he was not told. Generally, ignorance of the Law is no defence, and I think was wrong to suggest director error. All we are doing in disallowing the king of clubs switch is to restore equity, so I think we can have the same score for both sides, which would be normal play without the king of clubs switch. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 14, 2014 Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 If use of UI is an infraction of law, then North, who broke the law, would not "get redress" in any case. Law 81C2: The director has the duty to advise players of their rights and responsibilities under the laws.Law 9B2: No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.[b]Law 82C:[/b] If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose.It seems to me that the implication of Laws 81C2 and 9B2, taken together, is that the director has a duty to explain the ramifications of his possession of UI to North. It follows that the ruling given, which left that explanation out, is incorrect by omission. Therefore, if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally (how would that work when UI was used?) Law 82C requires the TD to award an adjusted score. If, Paul, you are saying that there is a rectification which will allow the board to be scored normally, please explain the legal process by which that is done. Perhaps via Laws 16A3, 16A4, 16B1{a}, 16B3, and 12C1? Is an assigned adjusted score under Law 12C1 a "normal" score? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted September 14, 2014 Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 If, Paul, you are saying that there is a rectification which will allow the board to be scored normally, please explain the legal process by which that is done. I thought the rectification was to assume we had told him that the fact that his partner had the ace of clubs is UI, and then we assume that he knew that, and made his normal lead, just as we would do if, for example, he had UI from the auction. It would not be a defence to say that he did not know a slow pass after, say, 1H-(1S)-4H-(4S), was UI, because the director had not told him. I think that adjusting to what would have happened without the director error is normal, but only if it is clear what would have happened. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted September 14, 2014 Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 I know that directors in the UK are taught to explain the UI of a withdrawn card, but, on reflection, I do not think North gets redress for his use of UI because he was not told. Generally, ignorance of the Law is no defence, and I think was wrong to suggest director error. All we are doing in disallowing the king of clubs switch is to restore equity, so I think we can have the same score for both sides, which would be normal play without the king of clubs switch.You are aware, I hope, ofAction by Non-Offending SideThe right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law.so ignorance of the Law can indeed be a defence. I find it obvious to apply similar consequences when the reason for the ignorance can be incomplete (or incorrect) information from the Director. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted September 14, 2014 Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 I find it obvious to apply similar consequences when the reason for the ignorance can be incomplete (or incorrect) information from the Director. We adjust for use of Unauthorized Information from a hesitation even if the player is not aware of the law and the director is not called (so the director is not in a position to inform the player of his obligations). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted September 14, 2014 Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 We adjust for use of Unauthorized Information from a hesitation even if the player is not aware of the law and the director is not called (so the director is not in a position to inform the player of his obligations).I am with Robin. Law 16 tells the player what UI is, and if the director does not dot all the i's and cross all the t's we still adjust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.