Double Dentist

[lamford]

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?

That is essentially correct, as that is what the Law says, although the drivel from the WBFLC contradicts this.

[lamford]

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?

North must just select from logical alternatives one not demonstrably suggested by the sight of the queen of the spades and he must carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI. In your example, a club might well be the only logical alternative, and could then be selected.

[lamford]

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.

No. The information that the player has this penalty card is unauthorised; only the requirement to play it is authorised.

 

(WBFLC minutes 1998-08-24~3)

Example: However, they may not act as though they know partner has that card. If a king was led out of turn and it is now a penalty card, then partner must act as if they do not know about the King nor about the Queen, a normal deduction when partner leads a King. They may not choose to lead the suit if the suit is suggested by the King and a different suit is a logical alternative.

[nige1]

Another example of the unnecessary problems that law-makers create by providing players with options after infractions. Some directors and many offenders simply lack the agile imagination to cope with perverse UI ramifications. Such laws grant the secretary-bird (as offender or victim) a significant advantage over the ordinary player.

[ArtK78]

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.

No.

 

North has authorized information that partner has a penalty card. Therefore, leading a club is NOT a logical alternative. If the penalty card is either a heart or a diamond, partner will have to play it on the club lead. And if the penalty card is a spade, it would make a club a logical alternative ONLY IF the spade were the Q. Furthermore, since declarer did not require a spade lead, it stands to reason that the penalty card is not a spade, so leading a club is demonstrably NOT a logical alternative. Note that the analysis about the penalty card not being a spade is based on authorized information. North knows the rules, and he knows that declarer could have required North to lead a spade if the penalty card were a spade. Given that North has not been required to lead a spade, he can deduce that the penalty card is not a spade.

 

This analysis has nothing to do with the UI - knowledge that South has both red tens. It has to do only with the AI - that South has a penalty card.

[Vampyr]

Another example of the unnecessary problems that law-makers create by providing players with options after infractions. Some directors and many offenders simply lack the agile imagination to cope with perverse UI ramifications. Such laws grant the secretary-bird (as offender or victim) a significant advantage over the ordinary player.

 

OK, what would you prefer to do when there is a major penalty card?

[lamford]

North has authorized information that partner has a penalty card.

Indeed. But the fact that it is the ten of hearts is unauthorised. Cashing the ace of hearts is using the information that partner's penalty card is the ten of hearts. Let us consider two different scenarios.

 

a) Partner led the ten of clubs and dropped only the ten of hearts

b) Partner led the ten of clubs and dropped only the ten of diamonds

 

In a) you need to cash the ace of hearts (and can also cash the ace of diamonds) before playing the trump promotion

In b) you need to cash the ace of diamonds (and can also cash the ace of hearts) before giving him the trump promotion

 

Both actions use the UI of knowing partner's penalty card to do better than you might do if you did not know what it was. The 1998 minute is clear, and the later minute does not override it. It states: "However, they may not act as though they know partner has that card." Cashing either red ace is acting as though you know partner has a penalty card in the suit in which you cash the ace. No interpretation can affect what does not need interpreting when it contradicts it.

 

And note that 50E says:

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

 

That indicates that all players are allowed to know that a penalty card must be played at the first opportunity. If the intention had been that all players were allowed to know that the ten of hearts had to played at the first opportunity, then this should have said:

 

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

[ArtK78]

No.

 

North has authorized information that partner has a penalty card.

 

 

Indeed. But the fact that it is the ten of hearts is unauthorised. Cashing the ace of hearts is using the information that partner's penalty card is the ten of hearts.

 

No.

 

North knows that South has a penalty card. Suppose North cannot see what it is. Why can't North play his two red aces in the hope that South's penalty card is in one of the red suits? North is not using the UI that the penalty card is a particular card - the ♥10 or the ♦10. He is using the authorized information that South has a penalty card. By playing the two red aces, North hopes to extract the penalty card from South's hand and then play a club. North is not using the UI of the actual identity of the penalty card. He is using the AI that there is a penalty card.

[lamford]

North knows that South has a penalty card. Suppose North cannot see what it is. Why can't North play his two red aces in the hope that South's penalty card is in one of the red suits? North is not using the UI that the penalty card is a particular card - the ♥10 or the ♦10. He is using the authorized information that South has a penalty card. By playing the two red aces, North hopes to extract the penalty card from South's hand and then play a club. North is not using the UI of the actual identity of the penalty card. He is using the AI that there is a penalty card.

Say that the layout is East ♠KQxx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣Kxxx and South's penalty card is a small trump. Now cashing the ace of hearts is fatal, as declarer's second heart loser disappears. However, we know that is not the case as we can see the ten of hearts, which does not look remotely like a small trump. For one to impose a club lead on North, all that we have to find is that playing a club is a logical alternative for peers of North who are not cheats and have poor eyesight so that they cannot see the penalty card and poor hearing in that they heard the TD indicate that some card or other was a penalty card, but they did not quite catch which one it was.

[blackshoe]

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.

1. It is within the responsibility and authority of the WBFLC to interpret the law. They have done so. You may disagree. Many people may disagree. But the LC has spoken, and a TD who willfully ignores that is, IMO, wrong.

2. The law does not say that a logical alternative which is less successful than other LAs must be selected. It says that the other LAs may not be selected if they could demonstrably have been suggested by unauthorized information.

3. "On that basis a club is a logical alternative". So you claim. Can you explain this logic, please?

[lamford]

1. It is within the responsibility and authority of the WBFLC to interpret the law. They have done so. You may disagree. Many people may disagree. But the LC has spoken, and a TD who willfully ignores that is, IMO, wrong.

They also interpreted the Law in 1998 that the partner of the person with the penalty card is not allowed to act as though he knows his partner possesses that card. I am not advocating the TD ignoring the minute, as, fortunately, he can cock a snook at the WBFLC's folly by applying 50E3 in this and all similar cases:

 

"If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall award an adjusted score." That is how I am likely to judge in this and similar situations. There is no requirement in the Laws for his judgement to accord with the wrong minute of the WBFLC. And I adjust for the damage caused by "using the information" not for the damage caused by the original infraction which created the penalty card.

 

2. The law does not say that a logical alternative which is less successful than other LAs must be selected. It says that the other LAs may not be selected if they could demonstrably have been suggested by unauthorized information.

I agree that my précis was inadequate, but in this case, cashing the ace of hearts is demonstrably suggested by the unauthorised information, and must not be selected under Law 73C.

 

3. "On that basis a club is a logical alternative". So you claim. Can you explain this logic, please?

If partner did not have a penalty card, you would play a club every day of the week. Cashing either red ace would be wrong whenever declarer has the hand I gave ArtK78, something like ♠KQxx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣Kxxx or ♠KQxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣Kxxx. It would be an LA for a peer of North who is told that his partner has an unspecified penalty card.

[mycroft]

I usually describe this (with an apology that it's not going to make any sense) as:

 

"The fact that he has this card, or he wanted to play this card [not applicable here, of course], and any information you can derive from those facts, is unauthorized to you¹, and you may not make a play suggested by those facts if there's a Logical Alternative². However, you *are* entitled to know that the penalty card will be played at the first legal opporutunity³ (and, here, if partner has a choice, declarer decides which card is played)⁴."

 

I freely admit I had a braino on my last comment - I just didn't see the problem. I must have been asleep (it was 1000, all decent directors are still asleep). However, it is an interesting issue. Yes, I do think that the fact that partner has a stiff club is AI, and the fact that if I lead a club, partner will play a penalty card is also AI; and that allowing partner the choice to do something by eating the PCs first is potentially a good option. Whether it *should be* legal is a question, but I think it *is*.

 

¹ Law 50E2

² Law 16B1

³ Law 50E1

⁴ Law 51A

[pran]

I usually describe this (with an apology that it's not going to make any sense) as:

 

"The fact that he has this card, or he wanted to play this card [not applicable here, of course], and any information you can derive from those facts, is unauthorized to you¹, and you may not make a play suggested by those facts if there's a Logical Alternative². However, you *are* entitled to know that the penalty card will be played at the first legal opporutunity³ (and, here, if partner has a choice, declarer decides which card is played)⁴."

 

I freely admit I had a braino on my last comment - I just didn't see the problem. I must have been asleep (it was 1000, all decent directors are still asleep). However, it is an interesting issue. Yes, I do think that the fact that partner has a stiff club is AI, and the fact that if I lead a club, partner will play a penalty card is also AI; and that allowing partner the choice to do something by eating the PCs first is potentially a good option. Whether it *should be* legal is a question, but I think it *is*.

 

¹ Law 50E2

² Law 16B1

³ Law 50E1

⁴ Law 51A

 

How does North "know" for a fact that the ♣10 led by South was a singleton?

 

I agree that North is allowed to plan his play based on that assumption (which can hardly be derived from the penalty cards) and the hope that South has a trump high enough to execute an uppercut. That obviously leads to a permissible line of play cashing the two red Aces and play of a second club.

[ArtK78]

Say that the layout is East ♠KQxx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣Kxxx and South's penalty card is a small trump. Now cashing the ace of hearts is fatal, as declarer's second heart loser disappears. However, we know that is not the case as we can see the ten of hearts, which does not look remotely like a small trump. For one to impose a club lead on North, all that we have to find is that playing a club is a logical alternative for peers of North who are not cheats and have poor eyesight so that they cannot see the penalty card and poor hearing in that they heard the TD indicate that some card or other was a penalty card, but they did not quite catch which one it was.

 

So now your argument is that the layout of the cards is different, and that the play of the ♥A is fatal to the defense. Before your argument was that playing the two red aces was not permissible because a club return was a logical alternative.

 

Apparently, you are creating a problem with a moving target.

 

 

 

[lamford]

So now your argument is that the layout of the cards is different, and that the play of the ♥A is fatal to the defense. Before your argument was that playing the two red aces was not permissible because a club return was a logical alternative.

 

Apparently, you are creating a problem with a moving target.

North can only see the dummy, and does not know what declarer's hand is, nor should he know the rank or suit of the penalty card(s), so the layout of the unseen cards is always a moving target. North must select from logical alternatives using the authorised information only. He knows that his partner has a penalty card (or two, it matters not), but not what it is. If that penalty card is a small trump, then no player would cash a red ace - there is no point - and it will often lose. Therefore a club is a logical alternative and cashing a red ace is demonstrably suggested by the UI.

 

Apparently, you are obfuscating because you have lost the argument. You weren't Harry Redknapp's tax attorney by any chance?

[lamford]

How does North "know" for a fact that the ♣10 led by South was a singleton?

He does not. If partner has a doubleton club, which is the only alternative as you can see the nine and they were playing standard leads I believe, then cashing a red ace is even worse. A high club does not cost if partner has a doubleton.

 

I tend to think SB deserves three PPs on the same hand. He concluded from the fact that his partner dropped two cards that his partner had been in a hurry to lead a singleton. He used the UI of what these cards were on two occasions, and he did not carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI. In addition his play of the three of clubs used the UI that he "knew" his partner had a singleton. Otherwise he would have returned a medium club.

 

It is quite possible, in fact more likely, that East has ♠KQxxx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣Kxx or ♠KQxxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣Kxx or even ♠KQxx ♥xxx ♦xxx ♣Kxx. In all cases, cashing a red ace is wrong and in the last case you need to cash both red aces to let it through (in some cases declarer can make anyway by playing a diamond to the nine, but has no reason to do so). North only cashed the red aces because he cheated selected from logical alternatives one demonstrably suggested by the three pieces of UI. Tut, tut, SB.

[lamford]

I freely admit I had a braino on my last comment - I just didn't see the problem. I must have been asleep (it was 1000, all decent directors are still asleep).

 

Yes, I do think that the fact that partner has a stiff club is AI

How do you conclude this? From partner's seeming haste to lead it? I would suggest that you need to sleep until 1230.

[lamford]

I agree that North is allowed to plan his play based on that assumption (which can hardly be derived from the penalty cards) and the hope that South has a trump high enough to execute an uppercut. That obviously leads to a permissible line of play cashing the two red Aces and play of a second club.

When people use "obviously" they are often on uncertain ground. It is "obvious" to me that playing a club at trick two is a logical alternative, as cashing either red ace may let through the contract immediately. South is around 68:28 to have a doubleton club rather than a singleton. No doubt he is a strong favourite to have a singleton when he leads it so quickly that he drops two other cards at the same time.

[RMB1]

... No doubt he is a strong favourite to have a singleton when he leads it so quickly that he drops two other cards at the same time.

Especially if the cards he drops are not clubs.

[pran]

When people use "obviously" they are often on uncertain ground. It is "obvious" to me that playing a club at trick two is a logical alternative, as cashing either red ace may let through the contract immediately. South is around 68:28 to have a doubleton club rather than a singleton. No doubt he is a strong favourite to have a singleton when he leads it so quickly that he drops two other cards at the same time.

You may be aware that I explicitly wrote "based on this assumption".

 

That does not imply that I find this assumption likely and I certainly do not discuss its rationality.

 

But if we accept that North assumes (or hopes) that South had a singleton Club and has a worthy trump then his line of play seems "obviously" correct (unless we can show that his assumption and/or hope is mainly based on the existence of the penalty cards, which I find rather questionable.)

[lamford]

But if we accept that North assumes (or hopes) that South had a singleton Club and has a worthy trump then his line of play seems "obviously" correct (unless we can show that his assumption and/or hope is mainly based on the existence of the penalty cards, which I find rather questionable.)

North's assumption or hope that his partner has a singleton club and his assumption or hope that partner's penalty cards are in hearts and diamonds are all based on UI. The AI, that partner led a club without dropping any other cards and without undue haste, makes returning a club at trick two a logical alternative. It is "obviously" the best defence as well, and cashing the two red aces before playing a club is "obviously" cheating selecting from logical alternatives one demonstrably suggested by the UI.

 

Even if North hopes or assumes that South has a singleton club, he must put this hope or assumption out of his mind, because it is at least partially derived from UI.

[pran]

[...]

Even if North hopes or assumes that South has a singleton club, he must put this hope or assumption out of his mind, because it is at least partially derived from UI.

Would you care to elaborate on the nature of that UI?

[lamford]

Would you care to elaborate on the nature of that UI?

a) That South led quickly, and dropped two cards in his haste, as stated in the OP. That makes it much more likely that he has led a singleton, but that is UI. As RMB1 points out, the fact that the penalty cards were not clubs strongly suggests that the lead was a singleton. North is not allowed to know what the penalty cards are or how they came to be penalty cards. The most likely card to be dropped is one of the same suit as the one led, providing UI that South is more likely to have a singleton than the a priori probability of about 68:28.

 

b) The fact that South's penalty cards are the ten of hearts and the ten of diamonds makes it more attractive to cash the aces in those suits. If either penalty card were a small trump, then North would play a club, as cashing either ace could be fatal. North is using the UI of the identity of the penalty cards in both cases. The logical alternative of a club has become less attractive by viewing the penalty cards, as no trump promotion is possible without cashing both red aces first.

[blackshoe]

a) That South led quickly, and dropped two cards in his haste, as stated in the OP. That makes it much more likely that he has led a singleton, but that is UI. As RMB1 points out, the fact that the penalty cards were not clubs strongly suggests that the lead was a singleton. North is not allowed to know what the penalty cards are or how they came to be penalty cards. The most likely card to be dropped is one of the same suit as the one led, providing UI that South is more likely to have a singleton than the a priori probability of 68:28.

 

b) The fact that South's penalty cards are the ten of hearts and the ten of diamonds makes it more attractive to cash the aces in those suits. If either penalty card were a small trump, then North would play a club, as cashing either ace could be fatal. North is using the UI of the identity of the penalty cards in both cases. The logical alternative of a club has become less attractive by viewing the penalty cards, as no trump promotion is possible without cashing both red aces first.

In your op, you asked "how do you rule?" If you knew the answer all along, why did you ask the question?

[RMB1]

If you knew the answer all along, why did you ask the question?

 

lamford wouldn't be the first to post a ruling question (even a composed one) when they think they knew the answer; and he won't be the last