The Rabbit Revokes

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj9542hakda643cak&w=sahj42djt92cj9743&n=sq8763h98653d75c2&e=skthqt7dkq8cqt865&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp3s(limit%20raise)p4n(simple%20Blackwood)p5d(1%20ace)p6sppp]399|300[/hv]

Matchpoints; Table Result 6S? Lead ♦J

 

SB quite likes individuals as it gives him a chance to be rude to 24 partners in one evening. Such was the case at a North London club this week, and featured a most remarkable safety play by SB, the like of which has never been seen before. Despite the fact that the TD stipulated "Simple System" with just ordinary Blackwood and Stayman, Molly the Mule, North, was not to be budged from her losing-trick count and 1430 RKCB and SB was soon in the hopeless slam. He won the diamond lead with the ace and led the king of clubs, intending to get rid of his diamond loser quickly. The rabbit, West, ruffed this with the ace of trumps, but Colin the Corgi, East, had been listening to the bidding and quickly asked "No clubs, partner?" "Oh, dear", replied RR, "I thought declarer had led the king of spades. The lighting is not as it should be." "I noticed", replied SB, "and that clearly affected my partner in the auction as well, so it cuts both ways," he retorted. "I think we ought to have the director," he continued, and Oscar the Owl, a keen student of WBFLC minutes, arrived.

 

"A non-established revoke", guided SB, "and I think you will need all the minutes on MPCs", he continued, noticing that the contract now had very real chances. "Leave it to me, please", OO chastised. "The ace of spades is now a MPC and must be played at the first opportunity". If East gains the lead, there will be lead penalties." He stopped, keen to be sure he had included everything. "And the fact that West has the ace of spades is UI to East, but the fact that it has to be played at the first opportunity is not." "And I shall remain until the MPC is played".

 

SB saw a significant extra chance. He would make the contract anyway if the king of spades fell under the ace, and it was clear that RR did not have both the ace and king of spades, or even he would have noticed that the card led was the king of clubs. He also thought that RR had won what he thought was the first round of trumps without thought, and he believed the trump layout was as it was. He therefore discarded a diamond on the second round of clubs, ruffed a diamond, and advanced the queen of spades! CC, East, had been fairly confident of defeating the contract until now, but foresaw a major problem at this unexpected development. "You stated that I am not allowed to know my partner has the ace of spades, but I am allowed to know that it has to be played on this trick", CC enquired. "Correct," replied OO, "and that is all I can tell you." "You have to make the best you can of the Laws according to Lear". After some thought, CC played low, and SB was one down.

 

"Now we move on to the catchall", continued SB:

"50E3. If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side he shall award an adjusted score."

 

"I submit that CC used the UI of seeing the ace of spades to play low. From his point of view, his partner might have had Jx of spades (we were playing four-card majors as required by simple system) or even the stiff J. The only time it would be wrong to cover would be when his partner had stiff ace, which he knew to be the case only from the UI." He paused for breath, "You should judge that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side and I think we can write down 6S=, can't we, OO?" "And if you don't rule under 50E3, there is always L23; RR could have known that playing the ace of spades on the king of clubs could well damage the non-offending side".

 

How would you rule?

[The_Badger]

That's hilarious, lamford. I'm sure the late Victor Mollo would be laughing his socks off, just like me :)

 

As for interpreting the technicalities, I'd leave that to the experienced tournament directors on here.

 

p.s. What did the Hideous Hog say? Rules are rules...

[pran]

When selecting which suit to play (usually as when the player has the lead to a new trick) the player may not choose which suit to play from the knowledge of his partner's penalty card(s).

 

However, once he has (legally) chosen a particular suit (usually as when he must follow suit) and his partner has a penalty card in this suit, the knowledge that his partner must play his penalty card to that trick is authorized.

 

Thus East is perfectly permitted to play his low spade rather than the King to the lead from Dummy in this situation.

[lamford]

When selecting which suit to play (usually as when the player has the lead to a new trick) the player may not choose which suit to play from the knowledge of his partner's penalty card(s).

 

However, once he has (legally) chosen a particular suit (usually as when he must follow suit) and his partner has a penalty card in this suit, the knowledge that his partner must play his penalty card to that trick is authorized.

 

Thus East is perfectly permitted to play his low spade rather than the King to the lead from Dummy in this situation.

SB agrees with you. However, he then thinks the TD adjusts under 50E3.

[pran]

SB agrees with you. However, he then thinks the TD adjusts under 50E3.

"50E3. If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side he shall award an adjusted score."

 

"I submit that CC used the UI of seeing the ace of spades to play low. From his point of view, his partner might have had Jx of spades (we were playing four-card majors as required by simple system) or even the stiff J. The only time it would be wrong to cover would be when his partner had stiff ace, which he knew to be the case only from the UI." He paused for breath, "You should judge that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side and I think we can write down 6S=, can't we, OO?" "And if you don't rule under 50E3, there is always L23; RR could have know that playing the ace of spades on the king of clubs could well damage the non-offending side".

I wouldn't use exactly this word at the table, but what SB submitted here is simply plain bullshit.

 

SB himself selected to force East play a spade by leading a spade from Dummy while the ♠A was visible in West. Had the ♠A no longer been visible to East at this time then SB might have a case, but not now.

 

In my opinion SB has failed to show damage and also completely failed to show any applicability of Law 23

[jeffford76]

Would East have covered if there hadn't been a penalty card? Seems reasonable that he might. So how can it possibly be right that West takes away his ability to make the "mistake"?

[axman]

Would East have covered if there hadn't been a penalty card? Seems reasonable that he might. So how can it possibly be right that West takes away his ability to make the "mistake"?

 

I doubt that is the appropriate question as there are other means than a PC that pard could 'improperly' be aware of the location of a spot. Probably better is 'What is likely had there been no infraction?'

 

As an attempt to sharpen the point. I confronted the following: I glanced at my hand and my little voice screamed 'the previous player did not mix the cards'. A couple seconds later it whispered 'the contract was 4S E making 9 tricks'. No irregularity occurred during the board: Our auction proceeded 1S-3S and around T7 holding 4-4 diamonds dummy led the DJ and the trick proceeded JQAK.

 

My thinking is that I was surprised that N covered the DJ when she did not know S held the DK. Which appears to be relevent to the situation here.

[pran]

Would East have covered if there hadn't been a penalty card? Seems reasonable that he might. So how can it possibly be right that West takes away his ability to make the "mistake"?

That is for the TD to judge, but the only situation where East should cover with his ♠K is when West holds the ♠J (and not the Ace!). In all other situations covering with the King is next to irrational.

 

As I wrote: Had the ♠A no longer been visible to East at this time then SB might have a case.

[sanst]

For once I'm with SB, who behaved exemplary. There's only one way to make the contract, which requires the spade layout as it is and E covering the queen. SB gives a layout, given East's hand, where not covering would be wrong, so playing the king is a LA. I would rule 6♠= and might even give a DP to EW. RR's infraction is a good example of Law 23 and CC might have used the UI.

[shyams]

A. Does simple systems mean 4-card major/ACOL? If 5-card majors is implied, then East has no problem following low.

 

B. Did RR follow to tricks 2-4 with the correct cards (i.e. give count correctly). If yes, then there is enough evidence with East to be able to legally play low.

[blackshoe]

There is always Law 94: Any ruling involving SB shall be resolved to SB's maximum detriment. :-)

[sanst]

A. Does simple systems mean 4-card major/ACOL? If 5-card majors is implied, then East has no problem following low.

 

B. Did RR follow to tricks 2-4 with the correct cards (i.e. give count correctly). If yes, then there is enough evidence with East to be able to legally play low.

You probably missed "(we were playing four-card majors as required by simple system)" in the OP.

[Trinidad]

Would SB really start slamming if he had a 4 card spade suit (missing KQJ)? Very unlikely.

 

The fact that there may be (or likely are) 2 keycards missing is easy to see: Dummy doesn't have the 1 keycard that she promised and SB didn't make a try for a grand slam (which he might have done if he thought all keycards were there).

 

On top of that, the play of the king doesn't merely lose when West has the singleton ♠A. It can also lose when West is void in trump.

 

All in all, I think that covering is such a poor play that I wouldn't deem it an LA.

 

Rik

[pran]

As I wrote:

[...] the only situation where East should cover with his ♠K is when West holds the ♠J (and not the Ace!). In all other situations covering with the King is next to irrational.

Would SB really start slamming if he had a 4 card spade suit (missing KQJ)? Very unlikely.

 

The fact that there may be (or likely are) 2 keycards missing is easy to see: Dummy doesn't have the 1 keycard that she promised and SB didn't make a try for a grand slam (which he might have done if he thought all keycards were there).

 

On top of that, the play of the king doesn't merely lose when West has the singleton ♠A. It can also lose when West is void in trump.

 

All in all, I think that covering is such a poor play that I wouldn't deem it an LA.

 

Rik

I deem it irrational.

[sanst]

As I wrote:

 

 

I deem it irrational.

If so, why did E think a while before playing low?

[pran]

If so, why did E think a while before playing low?

I understood OP that he considered the possible restriction(s) in his choice of play from his partner's MPC?

[Cyberyeti]

If so, why did E think a while before playing low?

 

Because he had to think about the ethicalities.

 

Simple system is insufficient description, that you play 4 card majors doesn't mean you open 1♠ on a 4♠4♦(23) automatically (we play 4 card majors and open 1♦), also E has potentially seen count signals in both minors, so it may be vanishingly unlikely S has only 4 spades. Declarer appears to hold 11 minor suit points and 4-2 in the minors, if he has only 4 spades and 3 hearts, he can't have ♠ A and ♥AK so he's going off anyway with you holding ♥7.

[shyams]

For once I'm with SB, who behaved exemplary. There's only one way to make the contract, which requires the spade layout as it is and E covering the queen. SB gives a layout, given East's hand, where not covering would be wrong, so playing the king is a LA. I would rule 6♠= and might even give a DP to EW. RR's infraction is a good example of Law 23 and CC might have used the UI.

A DP to E/W? Really????

[VixTD]

Since there seems to be considerable doubt about whether East should or would cover the queen if there's no penalty card opposite I hope no TD is going to give SB 100% of a making slam. As DWS used to be so keen to remind us, weighted scores should be considered normal rather than the exception when more than one outcome is possible.

[helene_t]

I thought that the UI restrictions in this situations are to interpretted as "East is entitled to know that if W has ♠A then he must play it, however, East is not entitled to know that W actually has ♠A".

 

Anyway, I don't think covering is irrational, so I would adjust to 6♠=.

[RMB1]

I thought that the UI restrictions in this situations are to interpretted as "East is entitled to know that if W has ♠A then he must play it, however, East is not entitled to know that W actually has ♠A"

 

If the adjustment is under Law 50E3 then this is not a "UI" law and it is possible to give a weighted ruling that includes a proportion of the table result. Law 50E3 does not say that using the information conveyed by the the exposed card is illegal.

[Trinidad]

Since there seems to be considerable doubt about whether East should or would cover the queen if there's no penalty card opposite I hope no TD is going to give SB 100% of a making slam. As DWS used to be so keen to remind us, weighted scores should be considered normal rather than the exception when more than one outcome is possible.

I don't see it this way.

 

I believe you British would call that a Reveley ruling.

 

• 
   
  
• Either covering is an LA. In that case, East will have to cover, otherwise he is using UI. If East ducks, then that is an infraction. An AS will be assigned reflecting what would happen without the infraction (i.e. 100% of East covering).
  
• Or covering is not an LA. In that case, East is allowed to duck without any consequences.
  

 

For me, covering is not an LA, so there are no consequences. But if the TD would decide that covering is an LA (and that the fact that West will play the ♠A is UI) then the AS will be 100% x 6♠=.

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Since there seems to be considerable doubt about whether East should or would cover the queen if there's no penalty card opposite I hope no TD is going to give SB 100% of a making slam. As DWS used to be so keen to remind us, weighted scores should be considered normal rather than the exception when more than one outcome is possible.

 

SB should get none of it in this case, as I pointed out earlier, failing to cover guarantees the slam goes off even if partner has Jx. Change your hearts to Q102 and it's more of an issue.

 

Basically ♠Axxx, 3 hearts, ♦Axxx, ♣AK can't make with any heart holding that doesn't make it a 2N opener.

[pran]

I thought that the UI restrictions in this situations are to interpretted as "East is entitled to know that if W has ♠A then he must play it, however, East is not entitled to know that W actually has ♠A".

The way I understand the clarification from WBFLC is that the knowledge of a partner's penalty card is UI for the purpose of selecting a suit to lead, but AI for the purpose of selecting which of his cards in the suit of that penalty card to play when he legally shall play a card in that suit.

 

So yes, the knowledge that partner holds and must play his ♠A is AI to East in this situation. This knowledge ceases to be AI if (and when) that card ceases to be a penalty card.

[VixTD]

I don't see it this way.

 

I believe you British would call that a Reveley ruling.

 

• 
   
  
• Either covering is an LA. In that case, East will have to cover, otherwise he is using UI. If East ducks, then that is an infraction. An AS will be assigned reflecting what would happen without the infraction (i.e. 100% of East covering).
  
• Or covering is not an LA. In that case, East is allowed to duck without any consequences.
  

 

For me, covering is not an LA, so there are no consequences. But if the TD would decide that covering is an LA (and that the fact that West will play the ♠A is UI) then the AS will be 100% x 6♠=.

 

Rik

As Robin explains above (his post arrived about the same time as yours), this is not what some British call a "Reveley ruling" because law 50E1 makes it clear that it is authorized information to East that West is going to play the ace on this trick, so East is well within his rights to play low. (Indeed, to do otherwise would be foolish.) However, whatever part of his score the TD judges he might have gained from the penalty card will be forfeit under law 50E3.

 

Of course if you think that no East would cover, or that East would always cover, 100% of one or other score would be right. I'd poll a number of other chimps and make a judgement on how likely it would be.