The Rabbit Revokes

[Cyberyeti]

If I was E, I would defend my actions as follows, shoot this down:

 

Absent the UI nobody covers the Q♠ here: Why ? well there are 4 cases that matter, partner has Jx, J, A or void

 

A I need to duck

J I need to cover, but declarer wouldn't lead the Q

void I need to duck

Jx means declarer has driven to slam opposite a limit raise with one key on a flat 19 with ♠Axxx, SB may be many things, a maniac is not one of them.

 

SB also didn't check for the Q♠ while not holding it, so is pretty likely to hold 6, and well nigh certain not to hold Axxx.

 

Thus I shouldn't be forced to cover.

[lamford]

If I was E, I would defend my actions as follows, shoot this down:

 

Absent the UI nobody covers the Q♠ here: Why ? well there are 4 cases that matter, partner has Jx, J, A or void

 

A I need to duck

J I need to cover, but declarer wouldn't lead the Q

void I need to duck

Jx means declarer has driven to slam opposite a limit raise with one key on a flat 19 with ♠Axxx, SB may be many things, a maniac is not one of them.

 

SB also didn't check for the Q♠ while not holding it, so is pretty likely to hold 6, and well nigh certain not to hold Axxx.

 

Thus I shouldn't be forced to cover.

With RR having singleton ace, you do need to duck. With singleton jack, SB might well play this way, as the MPC may well be the jack of spades. It is AI to SB but UI to you that it is not the jack of spades. He would conclude that it is twice as likely that you have the ten of spades as RR. He would also conclude that RR does not have a singleton king of spades, so the layout J opposite KT is twice as likely as JT opposite K and given that YOU are not covering from KT, it is clear to play as he did.

 

There are four times as many Jx holdings for partner as singleton ace. If declarer had Axxx KJ Axxx AKx or Axxx KJ Axx AKxx then he would be, approximately, 70% opposite a limit raise with one ace, according to a simulation (setting North as 10-11 with four trumps). With a fifth spade, he would be even higher. Don't forget that the COC stipulated limit (not mixed or Molly) raises and simple Blackwood. Not RKCB and asking for the queen of trumps, both of which were expressly forbidden. The hand you are playing declarer for, Jxxxx AK Axx AKx, is far less likely. Any count signals from RR would be completely useless. He had been told never to give count by all partners as he does so when it can only help declarer. So we fall back on the requirement to carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI. If you were East, as you are fully aware of all the legal and ethical requirements and strong enough to know you should cover, I would impose a double PP on you for blatant use of UI and trying to justify it (both to yourself and the TD), in addition to giving SB 100% of 6S=. It only needs to be an LA to cover, and I submit it is actually correct play.

 

As Robin says, the silver bullet is that you must convince the TD that you have not profited from the sight of the MPC. This you have singularly failed to do. And your UI requirements are as strong as ever. Even stronger maybe.

[lamford]

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.

There is nothing in the "could have been aware" of Law 23 which takes into account the class of player. The only test is whether ANY player could have been aware that his infraction would damage the non-offenders.

[lamford]

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 think Law 50E allows the TD to adjust if the person uses the UI, but, if the person carefully avoids taking any advantage of it, then the MPC would NOT convey such information as to damage the non-offending sid, in the sense that the person acts as though he has not seen it. You could say that it is redundant, but Law 16B and Law 73C duplicate each other as well.

[Cyberyeti]

If declarer had Axxx KJ Axxx AKx or Axxx KJ Axx AKxx then he would be, approximately, 70% opposite a limit raise with one ace, according to a simulation (setting North as 10-11 with four trumps).

 

I don't believe your sim.

 

I think you're significantly upwards of 20% and maybe close to 30% to have 2 trump losers let alone other issues (10% partner has none of KQJ where you're just off, c.14% he only has the J where you're off a very large percentage of the time, c.14% chance of just the Q where you're off a decent proportion of the time if they're 3-2, let alone other situations where they don't break). Also in a sim you take the heart finesse whenever it's right, and take it the right way when partner has the 10, ditto spade holdings like KJ9x.

 

The deadest of the dead however is opposite KQJx, Ax, some 4-3 where you can't make 5.

[barmar]

There is nothing in the "could have been aware" of Law 23 which takes into account the class of player. The only test is whether ANY player could have been aware that his infraction would damage the non-offenders.

Are you interpreting it this way because the law says "an offender" rather than "the offender", so it's not specific to the particular player? It's possible that the lawmakers intended this nuance, it could also just be that they didn't word it as carefully as they could have. In this context, "an" could be meant to be specific or non-specific.

[lamford]

I don't believe your sim.

 

I think you're significantly upwards of 20% and maybe close to 30% to have 2 trump losers let alone other issues (10% partner has none of KQJ where you're just off, c.14% he only has the J where you're off a very large percentage of the time, c.14% chance of just the Q where you're off a decent proportion of the time if they're 3-2, let alone other situations where they don't break). Also in a sim you take the heart finesse whenever it's right, and take it the right way when partner has the 10, ditto spade holdings like KJ9x.

 

The deadest of the dead however is opposite KQJx, Ax, some 4-3 where you can't make 5.

The problem is that Deep Finesse (used in the SIM) plays Axxx opposite Qxxx perfectly by ducking the second round when it is right to do so. Mind you I would do the same against the Rabbit who will play the king when he has it. And the only relevant issue is how often SB would move on Jxxxx AK Axxx AK and how often (relatively) he would move on Axxx KJ Axx(x) AKx. He is an arrogant ***** and will regard his declarer play as so good that he will always move. I think he has overbid a little in both scenarios, but given that he is opposite Molly I cannot blame him. You are bucking tremendous odds, however, by ducking instead of covering, hoping partner has the miracle stiff ace that you have seen. I would cover always. It only has to be an LA.

[lamford]

Are you interpreting it this way because the law says "an offender" rather than "the offender

Yes. The Laws are so watertight that they would never use the wrong article. :)

[lamford]

For me, not covering is not an LA, so there are no consequences.

FYP. Apart from that the rest was correct.