Can you help the director out here?

[VixTD]

You arrive at the club for the annual mixed pairs championship. Unfortunately, owing to last-minute illnesses, Tory austerity cuts or something, the ten pairs that had signed up have dwindled to seven, but the duty director soon has a four-table Howell movement underway. As you aren't directing tonight you can concentrate on playing. All goes smoothly until the director is called to another table. You overhear her say "...and that's a minor penalty card..." and can't help thinking to yourself "I bet it isn't" as you concentrate on the hand you're playing. Sure enough, the director is soon called back to the table, there's some more discussion, and then she comes over to you as you are finishing the hand and asks if you can come and help.

 

Of course you can. This is what you find:

[hv=pc=n&s=sj74hkj93dj8cat96&w=st5hq86d9753ckq73&n=sk9ha752da64cj854&e=saq8632ht4dkqt2c2&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n(12-14)2sppp]399|300[/hv]

South led ♦J to the ace. North returned the six to declarer's king.

East led ace and another spade. South went up with the jack and led the ♥3 before realising her partner had won the last trick.

 

The TD gave East the option of accepting the lead, and when he didn't declared ♥3 a minor penalty card, gave East some lead options but said the penalty card did not have to played at the first legal opportunity.

 

East forbade a heart lead, North led ♦4 and South ruffed. At this point the players call the director back and question the ruling. She realises she got it wrong and asks you to take over.

 

What do you do now?

[pran]

[...]

The TD gave East the option of accepting the lead, and when he didn't declared ♥3 a minor penalty card, gave East some lead options but said the penalty card did not have to played at the first legal opportunity.

 

East forbade a heart lead, North led ♦4 and South ruffed. At this point the players call the director back and question the ruling. She realises she got it wrong and asks you to take over.

 

What do you do now?

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.

Once North has led the ♦4 there is no rectification that will allow the board to be scored normally.

[campboy]

I don't see why the TD's error makes any difference to the result. If correctly informed, declarer will either still prohibit a heart lead (same thing happens), make no restriction on lead (same thing happens), require a heart lead (North cashes his ace of hearts and then gives partner a diamond ruff anyway), or, I suppose, accept the heart lead (North wins and gives partner a diamond ruff). The third and fourth options can really be ruled out (since declarer preferred to prohibit a heart lead than accept or force one before, that can't change simply because of different information about what happens if he does none of these things), but I include them for completeness.

 

I suppose 82C requires us to adjust, but I would just adjust to the table score for both sides, since I don't think any other result is plausible even without TD error.

[lamford]

I don't see why the TD's error makes any difference to the result. If correctly informed, declarer will either still prohibit a heart lead (same thing happens), make no restriction on lead (same thing happens) <snip>

A rara avis indeed, an error by campboy. If East makes no restriction on lead and North leads the 4♦, then East will follow and South has to discard the major penalty card. It seems also we are going to get involved in yet another discussion of Law 50, in particular:

 

E. Information from a Penalty Card

1. Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players.

2. Other information derived from sight of a penalty card is unauthorized for the partner of the player who has the penalty card (but authorized for declarer).

My interpretation of this is that North is allowed to know that South has a penalty card, but is not allowed to know that it is the 3♥, as that is derived from the sight of the 3♥. He cannot therefore perform the dentist coup of extracting the penalty card by cashing the ace of hearts before giving the trump promotion.

 

I think there is director error, and we give NS the table result, presumably 2S-1, and we give EW 2S=.

[campboy]

Good point! I now agree that the correct ruling depends on your interpretation of Law 50E. Rightly or wrongly, I interpret that law differently and would permit the dentist coup.

[Lanor Fow]

At the point the director is called back, we don't yet have a table result.

 

I'd instruct the table to continue playing and that I would make a ruling at the end of the hand.

 

If EW are non offending in the adjustment, one assumes they would probably forbid a heart lead as they did at the table, which makes the Dentists Coup impossible, and makes mute the discussion of law 50. EW get 2s=.

 

I'm not sure if treating NS as non offending means we should consider the card a minor penalty card, or not a penalty card at all. In this case it's unlikely to matter, but it's worth noting that with a minor penalty card there should be no lead penalties anyway, so this is a second error on the directors part. As such when adjusting I would consider N to be able to lead anything. In this case this is unlikely to matter either as a diamond lead is best (or heart ace followed by diamond switch). I'd give NS 2s-1.

 

I'm unconvinced if I should have instructed them to play on, given that both sides have been disadvantaged by two incorrect parts of the ruling (minor penalty card and lead penalties on a minor penalty card) so in any case I will be considering what would have happened rather than the table result.

[lamford]

If EW are non offending in the adjustment, one assumes they would probably forbid a heart lead as they did at the table

You asssume that the non-offender, with correct information from the TD, would make the choice that was most in their interest. If East had known that the penalty card had to be played at the first opportunity, then she should have allowed North to lead anything he liked. North cannot select from logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested by the sight of the three of hearts.

 

Even if you accept campboy's interpretation of Law 50, which I hope is not shared by other TDs, you would still adjust if North employed the Dentist Coup. You would fall back on Law 50E again:

3. If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side he shall award an adjusted score.

 

Here cashing the ace of hearts first is clearly using the information conveyed by the penalty card (that it is not a trump), and the TD therefore awards an adjusted score. Although it is still interesting for working out the split score after TD error, this thread would be more interesting if the TD has ruled correctly and North had tried the Dentist Coup. I wonder if that might occur at some time in a North London club, with SB sitting North ...

[Aardv]

If EW are non offending in the adjustment, one assumes they would probably forbid a heart lead as they did at the table, which makes the Dentists Coup impossible, and makes mute the discussion of law 50. EW get 2s=.

Pardon? If declarer forbids a heart lead, the ♥3 is no longer a penalty card, so South can ruff a diamond lead. The only route to 2♠= would be for declarer to opt to retain the penalty card and for North to lead either a small heart or a diamond, in either case knowing that South has to play ♥3 on it. I'm supposed to give any non-offending side "the most favourable result that was likely", but I can't see that any result was at all likely other than 2♠-1.

 

(My reading of 50E is that North is allowed to know that his partner has ♥3 and is obliged to play it, but not allowed to know that he would have led it had it been his lead.)

[lamford]

(My reading of 50E is that North is allowed to know that his partner has ♥3 and is obliged to play it, but not allowed to know that he would have led it had it been his lead.)

My reading of 50E is that North is NOT allowed to know that his partner has the three of hearts, but that he is allowed to know that his partner has a penalty card, and the requirement for playing it. A bizarre example quoted by the WBFLC and maybe the White Book is that you are allowed to lead low from KQJx if partner has the ace has a penalty card! Rubbish. I think if a heart was the only logical switch (say North had the long trump), North would be allowed to lead the ace rather than a low one, but even this is arguable, as leading low might be the normal play in case partner has KJT.

 

The fact that South possesses the three of hearts is unauthorised to North when selecting his lead.

[campboy]

Even if you accept campboy's interpretation of Law 50, which I hope is not shared by other TDs, you would still adjust if North employed the Dentist Coup. You would fall back on Law 50E again:

3. If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side he shall award an adjusted score.

No, I wouldn't. Recall that "damage" is defined in Law 12B1, and it is defined in terms of "the expectation had the infraction not occurred". So it is fine for NS to use AI to get back to the number of tricks they would have had without the infraction. Unless they actually gain from the exposed card, there is no damage.

[campboy]

My reading of 50E is that North is NOT allowed to know that his partner has the three of hearts, but that he is allowed to know that his partner has a penalty card, and the requirement for playing it. A bizarre example quoted by the WBFLC and maybe the white book is that you are allowed to lead low from KQJx if partner has the ace has a penalty card! Rubbish.

Since it is a WBFLC minute, and quoted in the WB, that's how we have to rule.

 

The fact that South possesses the three of hearts is unauthorised to North when selecting his lead.

True, but irrelevant, since the fact that South possesses the three of hearts does not by itself suggest any play over any other. The fact that penalty-card restrictions mean she can't ruff a diamond is what makes it right to play a heart, and this fact is authorised IMO.

[WellSpyder]

It seems also we are going to get involved in yet another discussion of Law 50, in particular:

 

E. Information from a Penalty Card

1. Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players.

2. Other information derived from sight of a penalty card is unauthorized for the partner of the player who has the penalty card (but authorized for declarer).

 

Good forecast!

 

My reading of 50E is that North is NOT allowed to know that his partner has the three of hearts, but that he is allowed to know that his partner has a penalty card, and the requirement for playing it. A bizarre example quoted by the WBFLC and maybe the white book is that you are allowed to lead low from KQJx if partner has the ace has a penalty card! Rubbish.

 

The fact that South possesses the three of hearts is unauthorised to North when selecting his lead.

My reading of 50E is that North is NOT allowed to know that his partner has the three of hearts, but that he IS allowed to know that his partner will have to play the three of hearts if North leads a heart (or a diamond). This is, of course, impossible...

[lamford]

My reading of 50E is that North is NOT allowed to know that his partner has the three of hearts, but that he IS allowed to know that his partner will have to play the three of hearts if North leads a heart (or a diamond). This is, of course, impossible...

Indeed Law 50E is FUBAR, which I am told is allowed in Scrabble. On a linguistic note, it is shown in dictionaries as an adjective, but its comparative and superlative FUBARER and FUBAREST are not allowed in Scrabble. Why?

[Vampyr]

My reading of 50E is that North is NOT allowed to know that his partner has the three of hearts, but that he IS allowed to know that his partner will have to play the three of hearts if North leads a heart (or a diamond). This is, of course, impossible...

 

Yes, it seems that 50E definitely needs a rethink.

[pran]

With a rectified Director's erratic ruling before North plays his ♦4 you can simply let North take back that card, then play out the board and score it normally.

 

Once North has played his ♦4 this is no longer possible, there are just too many "what if" and "maybe" to consider.

 

Law 82C then requires the Director to award adjusted scores effectively resulting in at least 60% score for each side.

 

Too bad for the Director's pride, but he has probably learned a lesson.

[Lanor Fow]

Pardon? If declarer forbids a heart lead, the ♥3 is no longer a penalty card, so South can ruff a diamond lead. The only route to 2♠= would be for declarer to opt to retain the penalty card and for North to lead either a small heart or a diamond, in either case knowing that South has to play ♥3 on it. I'm supposed to give any non-offending side "the most favourable result that was likely", but I can't see that any result was at all likely other than 2♠-1.

 

(My reading of 50E is that North is allowed to know that his partner has ♥3 and is obliged to play it, but not allowed to know that he would have led it had it been his lead.)

 

 

Apologies yes, serves me right for posting quickly whilst at work and not thinking enough.

[gordontd]

Law 82C then requires the Director to award adjusted scores effectively resulting in at least 60% score for each side.

My emphasis. Where do you find that in L82C?

[lamford]

The fact that penalty-card restrictions mean she can't ruff a diamond is what makes it right to play a heart, and this fact is authorised IMO.

Even if you accept the WBFLC minute, the fact that the three of hearts is not a trump is derived from the sight of the three of hearts. I think that one first has to decide on which suit to lead and then one can decide on which card to lead in the suit by then looking at the penalty card. The TD can also effectively override the WBFLC minute by ruling under 50E3, so one will usually be ruled against when underleading KQJx, finding partner with Ax.

[lamford]

No, I wouldn't. Recall that "damage" is defined in Law 12B1, and it is defined in terms of "the expectation had the infraction not occurred". So it is fine for NS to use AI to get back to the number of tricks they would have had without the infraction. Unless they actually gain from the exposed card, there is no damage.

There is a second infraction, in my view. North (in your ruling) used UI to cash the ace of hearts before giving his partner a trump promotion. If South's penalty card had been a club, and North had the ace of clubs, you would presumably allow him to cash the ace of clubs before giving his partner the trump promotion, even though the ace of clubs would otherwise be a ludicrous defence. We seem to disagree on whether the fact that the penalty card is specifically the three of hearts is UI or AI.

[Aardv]

Does anyone want (for the purpose of E-W's score) to forbid North to play a club, win the (compulsory) heart return, and give South a diamond ruff?

[pran]

Partner to a player having a major penalty card is allowed to "know" that the player

- has that particular card (as long as it remains a penalty card)

- must play this card at the first legal possibility

This includes that he is allowed to select which card in a suit with which he will follow to a trick from the knowledge that partner must play his penalty card in that same suit.

 

He is not allowed to select among alternative possible leads to a new trick one that could be suggested by the knowledge of

- the existence of that penalty card

- the circumstances why it became a penalty card

- the fact that he still has or has had that particular card (after it ceased to be a penalty card)

[Vampyr]

A lot of this discussion is about the difficulties present in Law 50. In the case at hand, I see no resolution other than a split score based on L82.

 

Also a seminar by a senior TD club member for inexperienced/uncertified directors in the club, and perhaps a reminder that book rulings are made with the book.

[pran]

My emphasis. Where do you find that in L82C?

 

treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose

[blackshoe]

It seems to me we have a tendency here to jump to the "interesting" part(s) of a case, skipping over the "uninteresting" stuff. However, at the table, the director, whether the one who made the original ruling or the later "helper", has to deal first with the "uninteresting". The "interesting" comes much later. So, step one, what does the director, whoever he is, rule at the table? At this point, South is on lead, and he has a penalty card on the table. The director previously ruled this a minor penalty card, but now realizes (or his helper realizes) that it should have been a major penalty card all along. So. "The three of hearts is a major penalty card, and should have been all along. Lead restrictions do not apply to minor penalty cards, but they do apply to major penalty cards, so the error in allowing lead restrictions against a minor penalty card is moot. At this time, South's ♥3 is a major penalty card, and South is on lead, so he must lead it. No further rectification applies at this time. Play on, and call me back after the play, at which time I will consider adjusting the score due to director error."

 

I'll deal with the "interesting" stuff later - I have to go play bridge now. B-)

[axman]

No, I wouldn't. Recall that "damage" is defined in Law 12B1, and it is defined in terms of "the expectation had the infraction not occurred". So it is fine for NS to use AI to get back to the number of tricks they would have had without the infraction. Unless they actually gain from the exposed card, there is no damage.

 

Two notes.

 

1. At the time the TD was called, L57A operates.

 

2. As for the definition of damage, WBF2008 only specifies when damage exists but not what it is- as in damage exists when there is a green spot on a blue moon: we know at such time that damage exists, but not what it is.