Can you help the director out here?

[lamford]

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)

I agree with the above, and the WBFLC minute is just wrong.

[gordontd]

treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose

That doesn't mean "giving them both at least 60%". It means "resolving any doubtful points in each side's favour, by giving them split scores if necessary."

 

If you can tell exactly what would have happened without director error, and that would have resulted in one side getting a poor score, you don't give them 60% anyway!

[Aardv]

I agree with the above, and the WBFLC minute is just wrong.

That makes no sense to me, the WBFLC has the authority to issue guidance on interpretation of the Laws, so it can be wrong only if it directly contradicts them.

 

The intention of both the Law and the minute is plain to me: for the purpose of mitigating the effect of the penalty card, a player is allowed to know that his partner has the penalty card and must play it. For purposes of improving the defence otherwise, he's not allowed to know. For a small card, that usually means in effect that he's allowed to know his partner has the card. For an honour, some doublethink is required; hence the minute.

[pran]

That doesn't mean "giving them both at least 60%". It means "resolving any doubtful points in each side's favour, by giving them split scores if necessary."

 

If you can tell exactly what would have happened without director error, and that would have resulted in one side getting a poor score, you don't give them 60% anyway!

 

Are you able in a case like this to tell exactly what would have happened without director error?

 

I am not. First of all I do not for a moment believe that North would have led his ♦4 and then certainly not how the play would have developed.

 

So when applying

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.

we must realize that that there is no way we can award an assigned adjusted score giving proper justice to both sides, consequently the adjusted scores we award must be artificial.

 

And then

a. When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

 

b. [...]

 

c. The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant that obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in imps). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in imps) on the other boards of that session.

 

Note that

If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score.

 

 

I must add that I am surprised it should be necessary to go into such details in a forum like this?

[VixTD]

North made it very clear to me that he would not have led ♦4 had he been told South would have to discard ♥3 on it, so he suggested that they start that trick again and let him lead something else. That may have led to an equitable outcome, but I couldn't think of a law that allowed the last three cards played to be retracted. I instructed them to play on and told them they would be given an adjusted score if anyone had been damaged by the incorrect ruling.

 

I adjusted the score to 100% of 2♠(E)-1 to NS and 100% of 2♠(E)= to EW.

 

That doesn't mean "giving them both at least 60%". It means "resolving any doubtful points in each side's favour, by giving them split scores if necessary."

I did think at the time that because EW are treated as non-offending I couldn't take away from them a score they obtained at the table, but I think that's making the same mistake as Pran.

[pran]

North made it very clear to me that he would not have led ♦4 had he been told South would have to discard ♥3 on it, so he suggested that they start that trick again and let him lead something else. That may have led to an equitable outcome, but I couldn't think of a law that allowed the last three cards played to be retracted. I instructed them to play on and told them they would be given an adjusted score if anyone had been damaged by the incorrect ruling.

 

I adjusted the score to 100% of 2♠(E)-1 to NS and 100% of 2♠(E)= to EW.

 

 

I did think at the time that because EW are treated as non-offending I couldn't take away from them a score they obtained at the table, but I think that's making the same mistake as Pran.

What mistake?

[Trinidad]

What mistake?

Suppose the entire EW field would be playing in 4♠, going down several tricks. Then NS at this table are going to get a zero and EW are going to get a top, irrespective of what the TD decided to rule (correctly or incorrectly). Yet, you give NS 60% and EW 60%. That is a mistake.

 

It may be difficult to come up with a non-artificial adjusted score, but it isn't impossible.

 

Rik

[pran]

Suppose the entire EW field would be playing in 4♠, going down several tricks. Then NS at this table are going to get a zero and EW are going to get a top, irrespective of what the TD decided to rule (correctly or incorrectly). Yet, you give NS 60% and EW 60%. That is a mistake.

 

It may be difficult to come up with a non-artificial adjusted score, but it isn't impossible.

 

Rik

Unless my memory fails me there is a rule that what might happen at other tables shall not influence the ruling on an irregularity.

 

In this case the Director's error is sufficiently severe to destroy any possibility of a normal result. The Director can of course try to "save his bacon" by imagining how the play should continue, but that is contrary to Law 82C. I see no mistake in awarding AVE+ to both sides.

 

Suppose that instead of the actual irregularity at this table there had been a fouled board (at this table only) and the Director judged that the foul had absolutely no impact on the result. Would you call it a mistake to use Law 87B and award AVE+ to both sides instead of finding that EW should keep their clean top and NS their clean bottom?

[Vampyr]

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.

 

But when East forbade a heart lead, the penalty card would have been picked up.

[gordontd]

Are you able in a case like this to tell exactly what would have happened without director error?

Sometimes. Other times one might give a split or weighted ruling.

 

I must add that I am surprised it should be necessary to go into such details in a forum like this?

 

There is some distance to go between acknowledging the general L12 guidance:

 

If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score.

and concluding, as you have, that whenever there is director error one must award an artificial adjusted score to both sides.

 

I'm surprised it's necessary to point this out.

[lamford]

That makes no sense to me, the WBFLC has the authority to issue guidance on interpretation of the Laws, so it can be wrong only if it directly contradicts them.

In my opinion, and I think also dburn's from a previous posting, the WBFLC minute does directly contradict the law. But the Law also contradicts itself as WellSpyder pointed out. The partner of the person with a penalty card is both allowed to know that his partner has that card and is not allowed to know.

[lamford]

I adjusted the score to 100% of 2♠(E)-1 to NS and 100% of 2♠(E)= to EW.

I think you were 100% correct.

[VixTD]

I did think at the time that because EW are treated as non-offending I couldn't take away from them a score they obtained at the table, but I think that's making the same mistake as Pran.

This is hogwash, of course, even worse than what Pran said. If a side gain because of the director's error they should have that gain taken away and be given a likely favourable result.

 

In this case the Director's error is sufficiently severe to destroy any possibility of a normal result.

I think the possible normal results are quite clear: declarer will make his contract unless the defence get their diamond ruff, in which case they'll be one off.

[blackshoe]

But when East forbade a heart lead, the penalty card would have been picked up.

Ah, so it would. Okay, South can lead whatever he wants.

 

I may be running through this too quickly again (there's a tournament in town, and I don't want to be late) but it seems to me the actual outcome so far (♥3 PC, lead restrictions) is the same as it would have been had the PC been declared major rather than minor. So I'm not sure there's a problem at this point. I'll look again later when I have more time.

[dburn]

In my opinion, and I think also dburn's from a previous posting, the WBFLC minute does directly contradict the law. But the Law also contradicts itself as WellSpyder pointed out. The partner of the person with a penalty card is both allowed to know that his partner has that card and is not allowed to know.

The Law does not actually contradict itself - what is self-contradictory is the reading of the Law embodied in the WBFLC minute.

 

The Law says that knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players. This means that all players are allowed to know that a major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, that a minor penalty card need not be played before an honour card in the same suit, and so on. It does not mean - otherwise the Law really would be contradictory - that a player is allowed to know what partner's penalty card actually is until partner has played it.

 

So, even if you have no logical alternative to leading, say, a heart from ♥KQJx, you are still not allowed to lead low just because partner has ♥A as a penalty card (unless you would have no logical alternative to leading low if partner did not have a penalty card).

 

But the WBFLC does not believe its own rules, so has issued an absurd and self-contradictory minute. I look forward to the following Combination of the Month in a forthcoming Bridge World:

 

North

♠10843

 

South

♠9752

 

No trumps. North-South need one spade trick. East has ♠A as a major penalty card. West is on lead.

[Vampyr]

This is hogwash, of course, even worse than what Pran said. If a side gain because of the director's error they should have that gain taken away and be given a likely favourable result?

 

Are you sure?

[pran]

The Law does not actually contradict itself - what is self-contradictory is the reading of the Law embodied in the WBFLC minute.

 

The Law says that knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players. This means that all players are allowed to know that a major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, that a minor penalty card need not be played before an honour card in the same suit, and so on. It does not mean - otherwise the Law really would be contradictory - that a player is allowed to know what partner's penalty card actually is until partner has played it.

 

So, even if you have no logical alternative to leading, say, a heart from ♥KQJx, you are still not allowed to lead low just because partner has ♥A as a penalty card (unless you would have no logical alternative to leading low if partner did not have a penalty card).

 

But the WBFLC does not believe its own rules, so has issued an absurd and self-contradictory minute. I look forward to the following Combination of the Month in a forthcoming Bridge World:

 

North

♠10843

 

South

♠9752

 

No trumps. North-South need one spade trick. East has ♠A as a major penalty card. West is on lead.

There is a WBFLC minute to the effect that if you must follow in a suit or (legally) has selected to lead a suit in which your partner has a major penalty card then you are free to Select which of Your cards in that suit you will play.

 

So in your example: if you have no logical alternative to leading, say, a heart from ♥KQJx, you are still not allowed to lead low just because partner has ♥A as a penalty card you are indeed certainly allowed to lead a low heart.

[dburn]

There is a WBFLC minute to the effect that if you must follow in a suit or (legally) has selected to lead a suit in which your partner has a major penalty card then you are free to Select which of Your cards in that suit you will play.

 

So in your example: if you have no logical alternative to leading, say, a heart from ♥KQJx, you are still not allowed to lead low just because partner has ♥A as a penalty card you are indeed certainly allowed to lead a low heart.

Yes, I know you are. This is because the WBFLC has done something remarkably stupid even by its own standards. I was explaining what the Law actually says, not what the WBFLC says that it says.

[campboy]

The Law says that knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players. This means that all players are allowed to know that a major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, that a minor penalty card need not be played before an honour card in the same suit, and so on. It does not mean - otherwise the Law really would be contradictory - that a player is allowed to know what partner's penalty card actually is until partner has played it.

That would only be contradictory if you interpret it in terms of what you are "allowed to know". But nothing in the law talks about what you are allowed to know -- you are allowed to know UI, you just aren't allowed to do what it suggests (unless there is no LA).

 

So, in what I believe to be the WBFLC interpretation, you have UI that partner has the ♥3 and AI that he has to play the ♥3 at the first legal opportunity. Of course, you can't know the AI without knowing the UI, but that's not a contradiction -- you're allowed to know both things.

 

Now does the UI suggest cashing the ace of hearts? No, the fact that partner has the ♥3 does not in itself make cashing the ace of hearts any more attractive. So you're allowed to do it, IMO.

[pran]

Yes, I know you are. This is because the WBFLC has done something remarkably stupid even by its own standards. I was explaining what the Law actually says, not what the WBFLC says that it says.

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).

3. [...]

WBFLC has clarified this to mean that the existence of a penalty card and the obligation to play it at the first legal opportunity is authorized to all players.

 

This is to say that a player may take into account partner's major penalty card when selecting which card in the affected suit he will play. For instance he is not required to play his Ace (from Ax) or King (from Kx) to a lead from Declarer when partner has the King or Ace respectively as a major penalty card even if playing the honour would have been the only reasonable play without knowledge of partner's MPC.

 

WBFLC has further clarified that "other information" being unauthorized makes it illegal to select a suit to be led from the knowledge of partner's MPC.

 

And finally WBFLC has made it clear that knowledge of partner holding a former MCP became unauthorized at the moment the card ceased to be MPC (unless it was played).

[pran]

[...]

Now does the UI suggest cashing the ace of hearts? No, the fact that partner has the ♥3 does not in itself make cashing the ace of hearts any more attractive. So you're allowed to do it, IMO.

The fact that partner wanted to lead the ♥3 is unauthorized also after the ♥3 has ceased to be a penalty card. So you are not allowed to cash the Ace if that has become attractive by partner's desire to lead the ♥3!

[pran]

Yes, I know you are. This is because the WBFLC has done something remarkably stupid even by its own standards. I was explaining what the Law actually says, not what the WBFLC says that it says.

WBFLC has clarified the Law, not altered it.

[dburn]

WBFLC has clarified the Law, not altered it.

WBFLC has created a complete nonsense out of what until then was at least moderately sensible. That is: the Law could be interpreted as if it were consistent, and even as if it would usually preserve equity. Following the joke minute, the Law can no longer do either (whereas a non-joke minute would actually have clarified the Law).

 

Prior to the joke minute, what I have said above was a possible, consistent, and fair interpretation of the words on the page. In effect, what the Law said was (and still should be):

 

Until partner has played his penalty card, the suit and the rank of that card are UI to you (because this is "other information from the sight of a penalty card"). Once he has played it, the fact that he had to play it rather than chose to play it is AI to you; for example, there is no requirement on you to interpret it as a signal (because this is "knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card").

 

An example with which Gordon (and Max) will be familiar: you open 1NT and after pass-pass-4♠-all pass, you lead something. Declarer wins it and leads a spade towards ♠Qx in the dummy. You are spared a guess as to what to play from your ♠Kx because partner has at some stage produced his (singleton) ♠A as a major penalty card. Why should you be the only defender in the room "allowed" to get the position right without needing to think?

 

The score might be adjusted under Law 23 or 50E3 some other such fatuity (it should be noted in passing that given Law 23, Law 50E3 is superfluous).

 

But why in blazes should it need to be adjusted? What is the point of making a Law that works perfectly well (because it leads the defenders always to crash their spade honours, just as they might have done had they not committed an infraction and as they should now do as offenders), and then saying "oh, we didn't mean to make defenders crash their honours, so we'll "clarify" the Law in such a way as to render it inconsistent and almost incomprehensible?

 

Of course the WBFLC minute has altered the Law. And not for the better.

[Vampyr]

David, I think you are forgetting the overriding philosophy of the most recent version of the Laws, which is that no player shall suffer as a consequence of having committed an infraction. Infractors must either benefit or, at worst, break even.

[dburn]

Indeed. Every time they publish a new set of Laws, I hope Kipling was right after all:

 

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins

When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,

As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,

The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return.

 

Then I reflect that the headings are not part of the Laws, and I go back down the pub.