Double Dentist

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq2ht6432dt8532ct&w=sat53hkq75dkq97cj&n=sj9ha8da6caq98543&e=sk8764hj9dj4ck762&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=2c(Precision)ppd3c4sppp]399|300[/hv]

IMPs Opening lead T♣, T♥ and T♦. Table Result: 4S-1

 

South on this hand from a North London club last night was one of its weakest members, and, in his haste to lead the singleton club, he dropped the ten of hearts and ten of diamonds at the same time. The TD was called, and established that the intended lead was the ten of clubs. North, who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, unhelpfully suggested that his partner was playing Canasta and was trying to meld his three tens, a remark ignored by everyone. The TD ruled that the ten of clubs was the opening lead and stated that the other two tens were both major penalty cards being of honour rank. North was both allowed and not allowed to know that South possessed them, but they were AI to the declarer. SB, who knew Law 50E in full, queried this, and the TD explained that possession of the penalty cards was UI to North, but SB was allowed to know that both cards had to be played at the first opportunity, either in following or discarding. North won the first trick with the ace of clubs, East carefully retaining the deuce, and the TD stepped in again. "Now you can insist on or prohibit either a heart lead or a diamond lead, or leave both cards as major penalty cards," he advised East. "I think I will leave them as major penalty cards", replied East. North cashed the ace of hearts, and South followed with the ten, which North took to be discouraging, as they played reverse attitude. "Hang on again," said the TD, who was diligently performing his duties. "You have a further option to insist on or prohibit a diamond lead, in which case the ten of diamonds gets picked up, or leave it as a major penalty card". "I guess I will do the same again, and leave it as a penalty card." replied East, and North cashed the ace of diamonds and treated his partner's ten as discouraging again. "OK there is no further penalty", concluded the TD. North now played the three of clubs and East did the best he could by underplaying this with the two, but even RR could see no hope of any further tricks outside trumps and ruffed with the queen defeating the contract.

 

How do you rule?

 

[Disclaimer: It is suggested by one of the moderators that the ban on "SB" or "hypothetical" posts may be lifted if it is made clear in the OP that they are "SB" or "hypothetical" posts. I have to admit that neither of the two North London clubs in question has SB as a member, nor do they have an RR, and any resemblance to real persons in this or other posts is purely coincidental, and my apologies for misleading any readers of this forum who thought SB actually existed.]

Edited May 18, 2015 by lamford

[VixTD]

I must be missing the point here. How does East claim to have been damaged? There is North's bizarre reading of partner's accidently dropped cards as if they were attitude signals, but he does that at his own risk. He's allowed to know they have to be played at the first legal opportunity. Is there a suggestion that South could have known that dropping tens rather than twos would have this effect?

 

Is there any other line of play North could consider? He knows from the sight of dummy that South can't have an entry for a red-suit ruff.

[blackshoe]

What, precisely, Mr. Secretary Bird, is the legal question?

[billw55]

It sounds like the director already ruled http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

 

More seriously, who is asking for a ruling, and on what basis? Which play is claimed to be an infraction?

[ArtK78]

I am as puzzled as the others. South committed an infraction, the TD was called, he made his ruling, correctly, at all stages. Where is there any grievance? As it is, NS defended the hand absolutely correctly, which they could have done had there been no infraction, as North could have followed the same defense on his own had there been no infraction, or he could have successfully returned a club at trick 2.

 

I do not see how EW were damaged.

 

 

 

[mycroft]

One nit:

The TD ruled that the ten of clubs was the opening lead and stated that the other two tens were both major penalty cards being of honour rank.

Both cards are major penalty cards regardless of rank: Law 50B.

 

I don't see why SB thinks that cashing out will make RR more likely to play the ♠Q on the promotion attempt. But obviously somebody does. I guess I don't play with RR that often - my C partners are either totally oblivious to the promotion play and ruff low no matter what I do, or they're going to play the ♠Q reflexively before or after my Aces.

[lamford]

I presume that all the posters above, with the exception of campboy who silently upgraded the original post, believe that SB used AI to extract the two penalty cards before executing the trump promotion.

 

Pran, for sure, will argue that North is not entitled to know that South possesses the two penalty cards until he decides on his lead at trick two, and I believe that others when they wake up from their slumber will consider whether cashing both red aces uses the UI that South's penalty cards are the ten of hearts and the ten of diamonds, which would otherwise have to be discarded on the second round of clubs. Without looking at the penalty cards, a club is at least an LA for North on either of the two previous rounds, fatally in this case.

[lamford]

One nit: Both cards are major penalty cards regardless of rank: Law 50B.

Well spotted, because there are two of them. The TD ruling that they were major penalty cards is unaffected, however.

[VixTD]

....the TD was called, he made his ruling, correctly, at all stages.

I'm not sure the TD is making the players fully aware of the future options and consequences from the outset (law 10C). He's jumping in each time a new option comes into force, but he's not doing too bad a job. Also, according to the EBU's slightly idiosyncratic (but not completely unreasonable) interpretation of law 58B2, cards dropped along with a card played intentionally are considered to be simultaneous plays (WB8.58.2), so the director should have given South the choice of which ten to lead to trick one.

[lamford]

I'm not sure the TD is making the players fully aware of the future options and consequences from the outset (law 10C). He's jumping in each time a new option comes into force, but he's not doing too bad a job. Also, according to the EBU's slightly idiosyncratic (but not completely unreasonable) interpretation of law 58B2, cards dropped along with a card played intentionally are considered to be simultaneous plays (WB8.58.2), so the director should have given South the choice of which ten to lead to trick one.

Hey, the TD is doing his best, and a lot better than the one in the mixed pairs event that you had to rescue!

 

I don't think 58B should apply in this case, as the player did not "lead or play" two or more cards. I think he "led" one card and "dropped" two cards. Does the EBU interpretation group the three cards together? I think that is wrong practice if it does.

[VixTD]

I presume that all the posters above, with the exception of campboy who silently upgraded the original post, believe that SB used AI to extract the two penalty cards before executing the trump promotion.

Not necessarily. I told you I was missing something.

[pran]

I'm not sure the TD is making the players fully aware of the future options and consequences from the outset (law 10C). He's jumping in each time a new option comes into force, but he's not doing too bad a job. Also, according to the EBU's slightly idiosyncratic (but not completely unreasonable) interpretation of law 58B2, cards dropped along with a card played intentionally are considered to be simultaneous plays (WB8.58.2), so the director should have given South the choice of which ten to lead to trick one.

 

Hey, the TD is doing his best, and a lot better than the one in the mixed pairs event that you had to rescue!

 

I don't think 58B should apply in this case, as the player did not "lead or play" two or more cards. I think he "led" one card and "dropped" two cards. Does the EBU interpretation group the three cards together? I think that is wrong practice if it does.

 

If the three cards are exposed simultaneously (i.e. in one and the same action) then Law 58B applies and the offender is free to designate which card he wants to lead.

 

If the one card is clearly played (first) and the other two cards are exposed in a separate incident then the first card is the card led and the two other cards become major penalty cards.

[pran]

I presume that all the posters above, with the exception of campboy who silently upgraded the original post, believe that SB used AI to extract the two penalty cards before executing the trump promotion.

 

Pran, for sure, will argue that North is not entitled to know that South possesses the two penalty cards until he decides on his lead at trick two, and I believe that others when they wake up from their slumber will consider whether cashing both red aces uses the UI that South's penalty cards are the ten of hearts and the ten of diamonds, which would otherwise have to be discarded on the second round of clubs. Without looking at the penalty cards, a club is at least an LA for North on either of the two previous rounds, fatally in this case.

North may not use his knowledge of the penalty cards in South to select one suit over another suit for his lead. However, once he has selected which suit to lead (or play) he is free to select which of his cards in that suit to lead or play based on the knowledge that South must play his penalty card (if legal).

 

This restriction on North remains in force until the respective penalty cards in South have been quitted regardless of whether they in the meantime have ceased to be penalty cards.

[lamford]

If the three cards are exposed simultaneously (i.e. in one and the same action) then Law 58B applies and the offender is free to designate which card he wants to lead.

 

If the one card is clearly played (first) and the other two cards are exposed in a separate incident then the first card is the card led and the two other cards become major penalty cards.

This does not conform with the definition of "lead" and "play" in the Laws. If a player, in leading to a trick, leads one card and simultaneously drops another one or more cards, then I cannot see how they meet the definition of "lead" or "play". That is academic in this case, as RR would have designated the ten of clubs as his lead.

 

I also see an unintended consequence when someone clumsily leads two cards, both just visible but neither of honour rank, and dummy does not notice that two have been led and faces the dummy. Does the opening leader get to choose after seeing dummy and considering the consequences, or should he specify which card he actually led?

[lamford]

North may not use his knowledge of the penalty cards in South to select one suit over another suit for his lead. However, once he has selected which suit to lead (or play) he is free to select which of his cards in that suit to lead or play based on the knowledge that South must play his penalty card (if legal).

 

This restriction on North remains in force until the respective penalty cards in South have been quitted regardless of whether they in the meantime have ceased to be penalty cards.

I am with dburn here, that North is not even allowed to take into account the penalty card when selecting the card in the suit which he chooses to lead unless there is no LA to that card. But your interpretation is enough to adjust to 4S= here. And a possible PP against SB for two separate uses of UI, after he had been told that possession of the penalty cards was UI to North.

[pran]

[...]

I also see an unintended consequence when someone clumsily leads two cards, both just visible but neither of honour rank, and dummy does not notice that two have been led and faces the dummy. Does the opening leader get to choose after seeing dummy and considering the consequences, or should he specify which card he actually led?

What is the problem? Law 58B applies whether or not Dummy has faced his cards.

[lamford]

What is the problem? Law 58B applies whether or not Dummy has faced his cards.

The question is whether the second card (let us assume there are two for now) is led or played, or accidentally dropped. I do not see anything in the Laws which indicates that a card cannot be dropped in the same instance as another card is led or played. Law 50B distinguishes between a card exposed unintentionally or exposed through deliberate play. Law 58B allows the player to choose only if both cards are led or played simultaneously, rather than one of them being dropped.

 

In this case, the ten of clubs was led, and the ten of hearts and ten of diamonds were dropped simultaneously, so the player did not lead two or more cards simultaneously, so Law 58B does not apply. In any case, that has no bearing on the rest of the thread.

[billw55]

OK so .. the existence of penalty cards is UI to the offending side, until such cards are played, at which time the fact that they were penalty cards becomes AI. Is this essentially correct?

 

If so, and considering that north did have a less successful LA (immediate club return), then adjusting to 4♠= does seem right. Perhaps north will argue that he must cash his aces anyway, to bring the trump promotion to south's attention. Not sure how convincing that is.

 

Interesting one lamford.

[pran]

The question is whether the second card (let us assume there are two for now) is led or played, or accidentally dropped. I do not see anything in the Laws which indicates that a card cannot be dropped in the same instance as another card is led or played. Law 50B distinguishes between a card exposed unintentionally or exposed through deliberate play. Law 58B allows the player to choose only if both cards are led or played simultaneously, rather than one of them being dropped.

 

In this case, the ten of clubs was led, and the ten of hearts and ten of diamonds were dropped simultaneously, so the player did not lead two or more cards simultaneously, so Law 58B does not apply. In any case, that has no bearing on the rest of the thread.

A single card below the rank of an honour exposed unintentionally (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) [...]

(my enhancement)

 

which explicitly implies that two or more cards played simultaneously to the same trick (by the same player) are always considered exposed unintentionally. Thus Law 58B must always first be applicable in such situations. After the player has selected which card he wishes to play Law 50 B is the applicable Law for ruling major or minor penalty card(s).

[pran]

OK so .. the existence of penalty cards is UI to the offending side, until such cards are played, at which time the fact that they were penalty cards becomes AI. Is this essentially correct?

NO

[billw55]

NO

 

Well ok. In that case, I still don't understand exactly what is UI and what is AI in this situation.

[ArtK78]

"North was both allowed and not allowed to know that South possessed them, but they were AI to the declarer. SB, who knew Law 50E in full, queried this, and the TD explained that possession of the penalty cards was UI to North, but SB was allowed to know that both cards had to be played at the first opportunity, either in following or discarding."

 

In other words, the fact that South held the 10 of diamonds and the 10 of hearts is UI to North, but the fact that South has two penalty cards and must play those cards at his first legal opportunity to do so is AI to North.

 

Assuming that this is correct, then I still find North blameless and I will not adjust the score. This is not a logical alternative situation. The fact that South has two penalty cards and must play them at his first legal opportunity is AI to North, so he can deal with that fact. What he may not do is anything relating to the fact that South possesses the two red 10s. Playing the red suit aces is an effective way of disposing of the penalty cards, and, since the fact that those cards have to be played at South's first legal opportunity is AI to North, he can play the red suit aces without any penalty.

 

It would be illogical for North to play a club at trick 2 when he knows that South will be required to play one of the penalty cards on that trick. And that is AI to North.

 

Unless you are disputing the original TD's ruling that the existence of the penalty cards is AI to North, then this is a non-problem.

 

If the argument is that North is entitled to know that South has two penalty cards, but is not entitled to know what they are, I think you are taking the argument to an absurd level. But, to play along, suppose the card dropped at trick one after the opening lead was the ♠Q, which now becomes a penalty card. And suppose, for some reason, that declarer does not require a spade lead at trick 2. Is there some reason why North would not be entitled to play a club at trick 2? Or, if North is allowed to play his red suit aces at trick 2 and trick 3 (to which South follows), is there some reason to prohibit North from playing a club thereafter?

 

Assuming that North is not entitled to know what the penalty card(s) is/are, is the fact that declarer is given the option to require or bar the lead of a heart or a diamond AI to North? If so, he can deduce the identity of the suit(s) of the penalty card(s).

 

Let's assume that the fact that declarer has chosen not to bar the lead of a red suit by North is UI to North. Then it does not cost North anything to play one of his red suit aces at trick 2 in the hope that one of the penalty cards will have to be played on that trick, and, at trick 3, it does not cost North anything to play his other red ace in the hope that the other penalty card will have to be played on that trick. If the play of both aces does dispose of the penalty cards, then North is free to lead whatever he chooses at trick 4, and South is free to play whatever he chooses at trick 4.

[pran]

Well ok. In that case, I still don't understand exactly what is UI and what is AI in this situation.

To repeat myself:

to the partner of a player having a penalty card the information that the player has this penalty card (including it's denomination and rank) and the fact that the player must play it at the first legal opportunity (if it is MPC) is authorized.

 

Any other information derived from sight of a penalty card (for instance the fact that the player wished to play the card) is unauthorized to partner at all times.

 

The information about the denomination and rank of the penalty card becomes unauthorized to partner if and when the card ceases to be a penalty card (for instance as the result of lead or play restrictions imposed by Declarer) since the card is then no longer exposed.

[Vampyr]

(my enhancement)

 

which explicitly implies that two or more cards played simultaneously to the same trick (by the same player) are always considered exposed unintentionally. Thus Law 58B must always first be applicable in such situations. After the player has selected which card he wishes to play Law 50 B is the applicable Law for ruling major or minor penalty card(s).

 

No. One card can be led and another dropped. It will normally be obvious to everyone present that this is what happened.

[lamford]

It would be illogical for North to play a club at trick 2 when he knows that South will be required to play one of the penalty cards on that trick. And that is AI to North.

North must first select his lead at trick two without knowledge of the fact that South has both red tens. He selects the lead without being aware what the penalty cards are. On that basis, a club is a logical alternative. Even if you accept the WBFLC minute as a correct interpretation of the Law, North is still not allowed to select which suit to lead using the information that South has both red tens. A club is a logical alternative and is less successful, therefore must be selected.