The Rabbit Revokes

[lamford]

SB should get none of it in this case, as I pointed out earlier, failing to cover guarantees the slam goes off <snip>

Not so, South could have Axxxx KJ Axxx AK. That looks like a sound slam-try opposite a limit raise, which MM did not have. Now you have to cover, or declarer just needs to get the hearts right. So, covering is an LA. The question is whether East used the UI. It is AI that West must play the ace of spades on this trick, but UI that he has it. If East knew that West had the ace of spades (if South had cashed the ace, king of hearts foolishly for example), then East would have been entitled to play low, because he can know work out from AI that his partner has the ace of spades, or South would have a 22 count. He can also work out from the AI that his partner has to play it on this trick. He is only entitled to play low when there is no LA to playing low. So, we poll ten corgis, removing the non-established revoke and the MPC, and if a significant number of them cover (RR rule 1: cover an honour with an honour, pard), we adjust to 100% of 6S=, as any smaller percentage would be illegal. Nothing in the WBFLC minute overrides East's Law 16 and Law 73 obligations. If you think you have to adjust under 50E, then you can indeed award some percentage of 6S=, but I think that this is a UI case first and foremost.

[lamford]

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.

Nothing in the WBFLC minute indicates that the knowledge of partner's penalty card is anything other than UI for any purpose. I cannot see any reference to "just for deciding which suit to lead". If you can work out that he must have the ace of spades, then and only then are you entitled to play low on this trick.

[Cyberyeti]

Not so, South could have Axxxx KJ Axxx AK. That looks like a sound slam-try opposite a limit raise, which MM did not have. Now you have to cover, or declarer just needs to get the hearts right. So, covering is an LA. The question is whether East used the UI. It is AI that West must play the ace of spades on this trick, but UI that he has it. If East knew that West had the ace of spades (if South had cashed the ace, king of hearts foolishly for example), then East would have been entitled to play low, because he can know work out from AI that his partner has the ace of spades, or South would have a 22 count. He can also work out from the AI that his partner has to play it on this trick. He is only entitled to play low when there is no LA to playing low. So, we poll ten corgis, removing the non-established revoke and the MPC, and if a significant number of them cover (RR rule 1: cover an honour with an honour, pard), we adjust to 100% of 6S=, as any smaller percentage would be illegal. Nothing in the WBFLC minute overrides East's Law 16 and Law 73 obligations. If you think you have to adjust under 50E, then you can indeed award some percentage of 6S=, but I think that this is a UI case first and foremost.

 

Queen is ZP from that holding, if declarer had the A (and 5 of them), he would have banged it down hoping for a stiff K.

[lamford]

Queen is ZP from that holding, if declarer had the A (and 5 of them), he would have banged it down hoping for a stiff K.

No, he wouldn't. From East's point of view the MPC might be the jack of spades. SB would know that you had the king, as RR would not have revoked on the king of clubs if he had the king of spades. Also restricted choice says that he is as likely to have revoked with a putative ten of spades as well. If you are not going to cover, then SB would always run the queen of spades. And it is his only chance if declarer has Axxx KJ Axx AKxx. That also looks slammish and SB would open 1S on that, playing with someone such as Molly. As I said, we have to poll ten corgis and see what they do. The chances of them working out how likely ducking is to cost, based on whether South had four or five spades, are minimal. And the chance of RR giving count on the second round in diamonds is non-existent too.

[Cyberyeti]

No, he wouldn't. From East's point of view the MPC might be the jack of spades. If you are not going to cover, then SB would run the queen of spades. And it is his only chance if declarer has Axxx KJ Axx AKxx. That also looks slammish.

 

And declarer will look the biggest moron in history if he plays that way and the spades were J10/K it's his only possible way of going off.

 

Also declarer and partner are probably known to hold an even number of diamonds by partner's carding.

[lamford]

And declarer will look the biggest moron in history if he plays that way and the spades were J10/K it's his only possible way of going off.

 

Also declarer and partner are probably known to hold an even number of diamonds by partner's carding.

East does not have a partner. RR is sitting opposite. And Axxx KJ Axxx AKx is also a hand where declarer has to play this way. I don't think it is the declarer who is a moron. It is someone who thinks that RR's carding has any meaning at all. And J opposite KT is twice as likely as JT opposite K. Against you I would run the queen. Against some people, I would lay down the ace, but never when I have only four spades, obviously. And I am reliably informed by SB that West played his lowest diamond and lowest club at trick two, three and four. As RR-CC were not an established partnership (it was an individual) they had not decided whether they played current or original count on the second round (either were permitted). RR likes to play current count (as he can rarely remember how many he started with) but nothing was agreed. So East cannot discern whether South had four or five spades.

 

Given the threadbare dummy, it is quite likely that SB is trying to pull a fast one in a hopeless contract. Indeed that was the case, wasn't it?

[lamford]

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

This is the most ridiculous statement I have seen in many a moon. The ace of spades is just as much UI if it is currently an MPC as if it has been picked up. It is only AI after it is played legally or the player is known to have it from the auction or play.

[lamford]

<snip>that you play 4 card majors doesn't mean you open 1♠ on a 4♠4♦(23) automatically<snip>

On the five occasions he had an opening bid in the evening, SB opened the major rather than the minor. He would have done everything possible to prevent MM getting her paws hooves on the dummy, including responding 3NT with 4-4 in the majors!

[Cyberyeti]

East does not have a partner. RR is sitting opposite. And Axxx KJ Axxx AKx is also a hand where declarer has to play this way. I don't think it is the declarer who is a moron. It is someone who thinks that RR's carding has any meaning at all. And J opposite KT is twice as likely as JT opposite K. Against you I would run the queen. Against some people, I would lay down the ace, but never when I have only four spades, obviously. And I am reliably informed by SB that West played his lowest diamond and lowest club at trick two, three and four. As RR-CC were not an established partnership (it was an individual) they had not decided whether they played current or original count on the second round (either were permitted). RR likes to play current count (as he can rarely remember how many he started with) but nothing was agreed. So East cannot discern whether South had four or five spades.

 

Given the threadbare dummy, it is quite likely that SB is trying to pull a fast one in a hopeless contract. Indeed that was the case, wasn't it?

 

You're moving from impossible hand to impossible hand, declarer is known to have an EVEN number of both minors from W's carding, he will have 3 hearts here if he has 4 spades.

[RMB1]

The EBU L&E committee also tried to construct an example of its understanding of Law 50E3, in EBU White Book 2006, 8.50.2

 

Example

Dealer West, EW vulnerable:

 

W . N . E . S

1NT P . P . 4♠

P . P . P

 

1NT is 15-17. West leads a club, East plays ♠A, East notices this is a revoke, substitutes ♣2, and South ruffs; the ♠A is a major penalty card. South now leads a small spade and West, holding ♠K doubleton, would have a guess (if it were not for the knowledge of ♠A). It appears that it is legal for West to play small but the TD may adjust the score on the basis that West might get this wrong without the information from the penalty card.

[lamford]

The EBU L&E committee also tried to construct an example of its understanding of Law 50E3, in EBU White Book 2006, 8.50.2

I think that West also has a duty to carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI of seeing the ace of spades and to select from among logical alternatives one not demonstrably suggested by the UI. Usually declarer will lay down the ace of spades if he has it, so ducking may well be permitted. A lot depends on dummy, and one has to poll ten people without the UI and see what they do if a low spade is led. If some of them crash the honours, then the TD should give 100% of crashing, not some percentage.

[lamford]

You're moving from impossible hand to impossible hand, declarer is known to have an EVEN number of both minors from W's carding, he will have 3 hearts here if he has 4 spades.

Utter drivel, which you keep repeating, ad nauseam. West is RR who cannot even follow suit, let alone give correct count. Declarer is around 44% to have four spades 35.1/(44.34+35.1), given that SB always opens a four-card major in preference to a four-card minor, and given that RR just always follows with his lowest card, when he manages to play the correct suit. We ignore the times he has six spades when it does not matter. Also when declarer has four spades, the only chance is to cover; when he has five, it is only wrong to cover when partner has stiff ace, and wrong when he has stiff jack. In fact, NOT covering is a serious error.

[lamford]

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.

Your ruling is fine, but it would be a PP to East for egregious use of UI, rather than a DP. OO did not give one however, as the relevant minutes are so nonsensical that even SB does not know quite what they are intended to mean.

[pran]

Nothing in the WBFLC minute indicates that the knowledge of partner's penalty card is anything other than UI for any purpose. I cannot see any reference to "just for deciding which suit to lead". If you can work out that he must have the ace of spades, then and only then are you entitled to play low on this trick.

WBFLC made it quite clear that the knowledge of the requirement to play MPC at the first legal option is AI to the offender's partner. This also includes knowing the exact identity of the MPC.

 

Consequently a player who (for instance) has the King in a suit where his partner has the Ace as MPC cannot be ruled to play his King only to see it covered by the Ace even if it is quite possible that he would have played his King without the knowledge of his partner's Ace. WBC was very explicit on this particular question.

 

He may however not select among alternative leads one that could be suggested by any knowledge from this MPC.

 

This includes selecting which suit to lead and it includes selecting which card in a suit to play once the card in question is no longer MPC.

[WellSpyder]

Hooray! Finally I have some idea what to do as either a player or a TD if this sort of situation arises. Thanks to Lamford for raising this thorny issue again, and to RMB and Pran for setting out the EBU L&E and WBFLC attempts to clarify the law. It may not be perfect, and one can argue about whether it is what the law actually says, but at least I now understand what they are saying and it seems workable in practice.

[sanst]

Hooray! Finally I have some idea what to do as either a player or a TD if this sort of situation arises. Thanks to Lamford for raising this thorny issue again, and to RMB and Pran for setting out the EBU L&E and WBFLC attempts to clarify the law. It may not be perfect, and one can argue about whether it is what the law actually says, but at least I know understand what they are saying and it seems workable in practice.

But this case is still a clear example of the "could have been aware" clause of Law 23.

[lamford]

WBFLC made it quite clear that the knowledge of the requirement to play MPC at the first legal option is AI to the offender's partner. This also includes knowing the exact identity of the MPC.

 

Consequently a player who (for instance) has the King in a suit where his partner has the Ace as MPC cannot be ruled to play his King only to see it covered by the Ace even if it is quite possible that he would have played his King without the knowledge of his partner's Ace. WBC was very explicit on this particular question.

I don't have the exact minute, nor does any TD here in Pula, but I do not recall it being as specific as you state. Can you quote the section which allows the player to know the exact identity of the MPC when following suit, please Pran? And any minute that allows the player to use the UI that his partner has the card. As far as I am aware, the minute is just wrong and cannot co-exist with Law 16, unless one makes the MPC AI. In my view one can only play low here if there is no logical alternative.

[pran]

I don't have the exact minute, nor does any TD here in Pula, but I do not recall it being as specific as you state. Can you quote the section which allows the player to know the exact identity of the MPC when following suit, please Pran? And any minute that allows the player to use the UI that his partner has the card. As far as I am aware, the minute is just wrong and cannot co-exist with Law 16, unless one makes the MPC AI. In my view one can only play low here if there is no logical alternative.

No, I cannot bother to search for that minute although I remember it very well because it did indeed change my own understanding of Law 50.

 

As Law 50 is a specific law while Law 16 is a more general law it takes precedence whenever there could be any conflict.

 

And frankly, I am tired of all these arguments for using Law 23 as a last resort to "punish" irregularities which really do not justify such reactions.

 

My last comment to this thread.

[barmar]

And frankly, I am tired of all these arguments for using Law 23 as a last resort to "punish" irregularities which really do not justify such reactions.

I've been tired of it for ages. SB has such a liberal interpretation of "could have been aware" and "could well damage" that any time an irregularity works in favor of the OS, he considers this possible and expects an adjustment. If this is really what the lawmakers intended, they would have just said so instead of couching it in terms of whether the player could have expected it -- this must have been meant to be a higher bar.

 

But that's SB's MO: if there's any vagueness in the wording of a law, he'll take advantage of it to interpret it in whatever way supports his case. He can easily flip flop depending on whether the law is being used for or against him.

[blackshoe]

People keep talking about "the minute(s)" without specifying which one(s) they're talking about. So, relying on work previously done by the EBU (thanks!) I opened the white book and found:

 

Law 50 Disposition of a Penalty Card

8.50.1 Law 50: Beneficial effect of a penalty card [WBFLC]

If possession of a penalty card has a beneficial effect for the offending side, the Director may have recourse to [Law 23].

[WBFLC minutes 1998-08-24#4]

Sometimes a penalty card seems to be good for the offending side: the TD should then consider Law 23. Of course this does not mean that the TD should normally adjust if the player happens to gain from a penalty card: there needs to be some possibility of wrongful intent.

8.50.2 Law 50E: Knowledge of major penalty card [WBFLC]

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.

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

[WBFLC minutes 2008-10-10#3]

 

The full text of the referenced minutes follows:

 

WBFLC minutes 2008-10-10#3]

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.

 

WBFLC minutes 1998-08-24#4

If possession of a penalty card has a beneficial effect for the offending side, the Director may have recourse to Law 72B1.

Proceed. B-)

[blackshoe]

But that's SB's MO: if there's any vagueness in the wording of a law, he'll take advantage of it to interpret it in whatever way supports his case. He can easily flip flop depending on whether the law is being used for or against him.

Indeed. However, as the quote above of the relevant minute establishes "there has to be some possibility of wrongful intent". We do not assume that such a possibility always exists. Indeed we assume, prima facie, that it does not exist.

[Cyberyeti]

Utter drivel, which you keep repeating, ad nauseam. West is RR who cannot even follow suit, let alone give correct count. Declarer is around 44% to have four spades 35.1/(44.34+35.1), given that SB always opens a four-card major in preference to a four-card minor, and given that RR just always follows with his lowest card, when he manages to play the correct suit. We ignore the times he has six spades when it does not matter. Also when declarer has four spades, the only chance is to cover; when he has five, it is only wrong to cover when partner has stiff ace, and wrong when he has stiff jack. In fact, NOT covering is a serious error.

 

If you're going to contrive that west is a complete idiot, don't then say he could have known ... he obviously couldn't

 

Any beginner can play a simple count signal here and you're simply contriving to resurrect a dud problem, give E ♥Qxx and the problem is much more intesting.

 

That said what does E actually legally know ?

 

He knows declarer has led the Q from dummy.

 

Absent any shenanigans, he knows declarer won't do this with Axxxx as it's ZP with correct defence, and there is a decent legitimate chance (stiff k). What changes this legally ?

[VixTD]

As far as I am aware, the minute is just wrong and cannot co-exist with Law 16, unless one makes the MPC AI. In my view one can only play low here if there is no logical alternative.

Your reading of the law would be the same if law 50E1 did not exist, and yet it does exist, and it's presumably there to serve some purpose. If East can only play low if there's no logical alternative, doesn't that render law 50E3 redundant as well? On what basis would the director adjust the score if offender's partner had taken the only logical course of action available to him, i.e. if he had taken no advantage from the unauthorized information?

 

I don't entirely agree with Pran, but I think he's on the right lines. East has to avoid taking advantage of the unauthorized information available to him from the penalty card, but he is allowed to know and act on the information that whatever he plays to this trick (♠Q lead), the card his partner is going to play to it will be ♠A. That much information is authorized, and so East's only logical course of action is to play low on this trick. He won't be allowed to gain by doing so, but he hasn't used any information that the law says is unauthorized, so he may well end up with a better score than he would under your interpretation.

 

I agree that the law is poorly conceived and formulated, but I actually think that we're reaching a workable interpretation of it, so I'm still finding this discussion useful and interesting. I may be the only one left now.

[barmar]

If you're going to contrive that west is a complete idiot, don't then say he could have known ... he obviously couldn't

Another of SB's regular tactics. Everyone knows that RR is incompetent, but the level of his incompetence rises and falls to server SB's argument.

[RMB1]

From WBF LC minutes

 

There are two WBFLC minutes re Law 50E, the first is from 1998-1-Lille item 3, which predates the current Law 50E.

 

3. Information arising from possession of a penalty card

The Committee considered the question of information arising from possession of a penalty card. Information that the player must play the penalty card as the law requires is authorised and partner may choose the card to lead from the suit on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may lead small from K Q J x when partner’s penalty card is the Ace). Information based on sight of partner’s penalty card is unauthorised so that, for example, the player may not choose to lead the suit if the suit is suggested by the penalty card and play of a different suit is a logical alternative.

 

The second is from 2008-Beijing item 3.

3. A Report from the October 8th meeting of the Drafting Subcommittee was considered. The Committee confirmed its interpretations and decisions as follows:

That Mr Kooijman be encouraged to complete his work on a commentary or appendix and then publish it, either after ratification by the WBF (possibly obtained via the internet) or, if he wished, as a personal commentary on the laws.

...

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 final sentence is the killer: it appears to imply that the interpretation in the 1998 minute still applies despite the change in the law.