Fourth Best Leads [SB]

[lamford]

Your Logic is good as a possible argument against leading a Club because of UI.

The problem is that we select LAs without knowledge of the UI, and then choose among them one that is not demonstrably suggested by the UI. Say the LAs are the king of clubs for count and the queen of clubs for attitude. We must select from among LAs one not demonstrably suggested by the UI that partner has the ace of clubs. We can then select either. What we cannot do is to select a non LA, the two of clubs, which is demonstrably suggested by the UI that partner has the ace of clubs.

 

An LA for a lead is a specific card, not a suit.

[blackshoe]

I am not sure what can be gained by giving a mythical character a DP; he will only be ruder next time.

Then we shoot him. :P

[lamford]

Can we really separate the choice of suit and card in this case? The only reason to choose a club lead is because you have a nice sequence to lead. Can we really treat these as independent decisions? This seems to be the crux of the problem with the way this Law is interpreted.

 

Sometimes they are independent -- there's only one unbid suit in the auction, and it suggests that this is the best lead, so then you have to decide which card to lead. But in most cases, the two decisions are tightly linked: you choose a particular suit because it has an attractive card to lead.

 

It strains logic that you can allow the choice of a club lead because of the sequence, and then allow him to NOT lead the card he would normally lead from the sequence.

I think you have summed up the problem perfectly. And it tallies with my thinking in the almost simultaneous post above. One selects the card to lead, without using the UI, and then cannot change that card based on the UI.

[barmar]

Then we shoot him. :P

Ugh, then we'll have virtual blood and guts all over the Internet.

 

Or were you referring to Lamford? :)

[blackshoe]

What we cannot do is to select a non LA, the two of clubs, which is demonstrably suggested by the UI that partner has the ace of clubs.

Yeah, that's how the law is interpreted. I've never liked that. The laws says, specifically, that one cannot choose from among logical alternatives. If the action chosen is not a logical alternative, then choosing it does not violate this law. And then we turn around and say that the very act of choosing the action makes it a logical alternative. A Vulcan would reject the whole mess. :(

[barmar]

A Vulcan would reject the whole mess. :(

An android would shout "Norman, coordinate" and then shut down.

 

This interpretation is just a mess, and hypos like this one just emphasize the point.

[lamford]

Yeah, that's how the law is interpreted. I've never liked that. The laws says, specifically, that one cannot choose from among logical alternatives. If the action chosen is not a logical alternative, then choosing it does not violate this law. And then we turn around and say that the very act of choosing the action makes it a logical alternative. A Vulcan would reject the whole mess. :(

I agree that one cannot get round Law 16 by choosing a non-LA and there is indeed some case law that the actual selection is always deemed an LA.

[Vampyr]

I agree that one cannot get round Law 16 by choosing a non-LA and there is indeed some case law that the actual selection is always deemed an LA.

 

Yes of course it is. There must have been some sort of logic involved when the call was made. The Law should make this clear, but it seems that it should be clear to anyone who is not a dimwit.

[pran]

Has nobody grasped the important difference between:

- The knowledge that partner has the ♣A because it has been, but no longer is a penalty card is UI

- The knowledge that partner must play his penalty card ♣A to a Club lead is AI.

 

The fact that the ♣A is a penalty card at the time West is allowed (for whatever reason) to lead a Club makes the lead of the ♣2 perfectly legal regardless of whether or not this Choice would have been LA absent any irregularity. (But the choice to lead a Club could still be illegal, judged to be based on UI.)

 

If the ♣A at this time had been a withdrawn penalty card then the lead of the ♣2 would be illegal, based on UI.

[weejonnie]

I actually hold a contrary view:

 

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

 

Surely this means - that there is a card that must be played when next able to do so?

 

Other information derived from sight of a penalty card is unauthorised....

 

In effect therefore the penalty card should be a blank piece of card with just the suit shown on it.

 

NB: After rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any play or call advantageous to their side - even though they thereby appear to profit though their own infraction.

[lamford]

In effect therefore the penalty card should be a blank piece of card with just the suit shown on it.

Why should the suit be shown on it? That is also UI. Both the rank and the suit are "other information derived from the sight of the penalty card."

[barmar]

My interpretation of this Law is that when partner actually plays the card, the information that it was a forced play is AI. So you aren't forced to make incorrect inferences about it -- it's not a signal, he's not denying a better card, etc.

 

I think the regulators really messed up when they declared the interpretation that allows you to use some information about the penalty card's identity.

[blackshoe]

There must have been some sort of logic involved when the call was made.

Your assumption is flawed.

[pran]

I actually hold a contrary view:

 

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

 

Surely this means - that there is a card that must be played when next able to do so?

 

Other information derived from sight of a penalty card is unauthorised....

 

In effect therefore the penalty card should be a blank piece of card with just the suit shown on it.

 

NB: After rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any play or call advantageous to their side - even though they thereby appear to profit though their own infraction.

Are you aware of the WBFLC minute that explictly allows a player who's partner has a penalty card to use the knowledge that the penalty card must be played when possible when selecting which card (in the suit) the player himself may play?

 

For instance, if Declarer leads the ♠Queen and you hold the ♠King then a natural play will often be to play the King. And if you know (from UI) that your partner holds the Ace then this is no legal reason to not play the King. But if your partner has the ♠Ace as a penalty card then WBFLC has explicitly stated that you do not have to play your King!

[lamford]

Are you aware of the WBFLC minute that explictly allows a player who's partner has a penalty card to use the knowledge that the penalty card must be played when possible when selecting which card (in the suit) the player himself may play?

 

For instance, if Declarer leads the ♠Queen and you hold the ♠King then a natural play will often be to play the King. And if you know (from UI) that your partner holds the Ace then this is no legal reason to not play the King. But if your partner has the ♠Ace as a penalty card then WBFLC has explicitly stated that you do not have to play your King!

Assuming the White Book quotes the minute correctly (I do not have the original), you are missing an important corollary, Pran:

 

A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this card and information that the player has the card. Initially the underlead from KQJx to partner’s Ax is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3 applies.

If a player benefits from underleading the KQJ, as in this example, whether by accident or design, then the TD should award an adjusted score. Effectively one cannot gain from the underlead as opposed to the lead of the king. I think there is a separate breach of Law 16, but all roads lead to Rome.

 

The minute continues:

The player must convince the Director that he has not gained from the information that the player possesses the card.

In this example, West would not be able to so convince the Director. I do not think campboy is correct that the test is whether the player gained from the original infraction. It is whether he gained from the knowledge that his partner possesses the card that matters.

[pran]

Assuming the White Book quotes the minute correctly (I do not have the original), you are missing an important corollary, Pran:

 

A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this card and information that the player has the card. Initially the underlead from KQJx to partners Ax is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3 applies.

If a player benefits from underleading the KQJ, as in this example, whether by accident or design, then the TD should award an adjusted score. Effectively one cannot gain from the underlead as opposed to the lead of the king. I think there is a separate breach of Law 16, but all roads lead to Rome.

 

The minute continues:

The player must convince the Director that he has not gained from the information that the player possesses the card.

In this example, West would not be able to so convince the Director. I do not think campboy is correct that the test is whether the player gained from the original infraction. It is whether he gained from the knowledge that his partner possesses the card that matters.

Let us agree that we disagree.

I don't have the WBFLC minute at hand, but the way I remember it (together with the discussion and reasoning) a defender who realises that his partner must play a particular (penalty) card to a suit may freely use that knowledge when selecting which card in the suit he will lead or play (as the case might be) from his own hand.

 

It was particularly mentioned that he needs not lead or play a King only to see it "killed" by his partner's Ace, or his Ace to see it "killing" his partner's King in situations where such plays would otherwise be "normal".

[WellSpyder]

I know we have discussed this aspect of the laws before, but it does seem to be a genuinely difficult area. However, it seems completely obvious to me that the whole concept of how the game is supposed to work in a fair way requires it to be impossible for West to lead ♣2 in this example and to gain thereby, without some offsetting adjustment to the score afterwards. I don't understand why anybody would want to support an interpretation of the law that allows that to happen if there is any possibility of interpreting it differently.

[Cascade]

Assuming the White Book quotes the minute correctly (I do not have the original)

 

This is what the minutes say:

 

Law 50E ‐ Mr. Di Sacco asks that examples be provided of the application of this law.

A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this

card and information that the player has the card. Initially the underlead from K Q J x

to partner’s A x is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3

applies.

Mr.Bavin observes that the player must convince the Director that he has not gained

from the information that the player possesses the card. This continues the WBF Laws

Committee decision made in previous years.

 

The document is here

[gordontd]

A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this card and information that the player has the card. Initially the underlead from KQJx to partner’s Ax is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3 applies.

This seems to me even worse: it tells us we're allowed to do something, but if we do and gain from it we can be adjusted against! What kind of permission is that? However, following sensible objections to these minutes by David Burn in earlier threads I'm hoping it will be looked at again before the next law book.

[pran]

This seems to me even worse: it tells us we're allowed to do something, but if we do and gain from it we can be adjusted against! What kind of permission is that? However, following sensible objections to these minutes by David Burn in earlier threads I'm hoping it will be looked at again before the next law book.

Also remember that if Declarer uses his option to request a lead in the suit of the penalty card then the penalty card is restored to the offender's hand and the knowledge that the offender holds this card is now definitely UI to his partner.

 

Consequently a lead of x from KQJx will then almost always be ruled illegal (based on UI) when the exposed card is no longer a penalty card at the time of the lead!

 

I find it fair for both sides to use Law 50E on the choice of suit to lead but hardly on the choice of which card in that suit to lead in situations like OP.

[StevenG]

I find it fair for both sides to use Law 50E on the choice of suit to lead but hardly on the choice of which card in that suit to lead in situations like OP.

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

In this particular case, the lead of the King allows the contract to make by force. The lead of the two allows the contract to be defeated by force. Had East exposed the six, the lead would have been the King, so it is clear that the exposed card did convey such information as to damage the non-offending side.

[lamford]

This seems to me even worse: it tells us we're allowed to do something, but if we do and gain from it we can be adjusted against! What kind of permission is that? However, following sensible objections to these minutes by David Burn in earlier threads I'm hoping it will be looked at again before the next law book.

It was a direct quote from the White Book, and I agree it is ludicrous. Perhaps there should be another "clarification" from the WBFLC; and perhaps the White Book should clarify the EBU interpretation.

[pran]

In this particular case, the lead of the King allows the contract to make by force. The lead of the two allows the contract to be defeated by force. Had East exposed the six, the lead would have been the King, so it is clear that the exposed card did convey such information as to damage the non-offending side.

And if Declarer had demanded a Club lead from West instead of letting the ♣Ace remain a penalty card he would have secured the contract "by force".

 

Are you quite sure you don't give Declarer a double shot here? My feeling is that this is a question about "rub of the green".

[StevenG]

And if Declarer had demanded a Club lead from West instead of letting the ♣Ace remain a penalty card he would have secured the contract "by force".

 

Are you quite sure you don't give Declarer a double shot here? My feeling is that this is a question about "rub of the green".

I don't see how declarer making the wrong guess after an infraction, without knowing how the cards lie, nullifies the provisions of L50E3.

[barmar]

This seems to me even worse: it tells us we're allowed to do something, but if we do and gain from it we can be adjusted against! What kind of permission is that?

I think they're just trying to make the most sensible interpretation of a broken law.

 

Players aren't generally supposed to be able to take advantage of their own side's infractions. They're allowed to get lucky, that's rub of the green (e.g. if you bar partner, and when you guess the contract it turns out that it's better than the one you would have reached by a normal auction), but they shouldn't be able to use it gain deliberately. Leading low from KQJx is the most obvious example of that. They just couldn't imagine that the lawmakers really intended to condone this when they wrote the law about what is AI and UI w/r/t the exposed penalty card.