BBO Discussion Forums: Can you help the director out here? - BBO Discussion Forums

VixTD, on 2015-May-14, 06:32, said:

Are you sure?

dburn, on 2015-May-14, 09:37, said:

There is a WBFLC minute to the effect that if you must follow in a suit or (legally) has selected to lead a suit in which your partner has a major penalty card then you are free to Select which of Your cards in that suit you will play.

So in your example: if you have no logical alternative to leading, say, a heart from ♥KQJx, you are still not allowed to lead low just because partner has ♥A as a penalty card you are indeed certainly allowed to lead a low heart.

pran, on 2015-May-14, 10:55, said:

Yes, I know you are. This is because the WBFLC has done something remarkably stupid even by its own standards. I was explaining what the Law actually says, not what the WBFLC says that it says.

dburn, on 2015-May-14, 09:37, said:

That would only be contradictory if you interpret it in terms of what you are "allowed to know". But nothing in the law talks about what you are allowed to know -- you are allowed to know UI, you just aren't allowed to do what it suggests (unless there is no LA).

So, in what I believe to be the WBFLC interpretation, you have UI that partner has the ♥3 and AI that he has to play the ♥3 at the first legal opportunity. Of course, you can't know the AI without knowing the UI, but that's not a contradiction -- you're allowed to know both things.

Now does the UI suggest cashing the ace of hearts? No, the fact that partner has the ♥3 does not in itself make cashing the ace of hearts any more attractive. So you're allowed to do it, IMO.

dburn, on 2015-May-14, 11:00, said:

Law 50 E said:

WBFLC has clarified this to mean that the existence of a penalty card and the obligation to play it at the first legal opportunity is authorized to all players.

This is to say that a player may take into account partner's major penalty card when selecting which card in the affected suit he will play. For instance he is not required to play his Ace (from Ax) or King (from Kx) to a lead from Declarer when partner has the King or Ace respectively as a major penalty card even if playing the honour would have been the only reasonable play without knowledge of partner's MPC.

WBFLC has further clarified that "other information" being unauthorized makes it illegal to select a suit to be led from the knowledge of partner's MPC.

And finally WBFLC has made it clear that knowledge of partner holding a former MCP became unauthorized at the moment the card ceased to be MPC (unless it was played).

campboy, on 2015-May-14, 11:34, said:

The fact that partner wanted to lead the ♥3 is unauthorized also after the ♥3 has ceased to be a penalty card. So you are not allowed to cash the Ace if that has become attractive by partner's desire to lead the ♥3!

dburn, on 2015-May-14, 11:00, said:

WBFLC has clarified the Law, not altered it.

pran, on 2015-May-14, 13:50, said:

WBFLC has created a complete nonsense out of what until then was at least moderately sensible. That is: the Law could be interpreted as if it were consistent, and even as if it would usually preserve equity. Following the joke minute, the Law can no longer do either (whereas a non-joke minute would actually have clarified the Law).

Prior to the joke minute, what I have said above was a possible, consistent, and fair interpretation of the words on the page. In effect, what the Law said was (and still should be):

Until partner has played his penalty card, the suit and the rank of that card are UI to you (because this is "other information from the sight of a penalty card"). Once he has played it, the fact that he had to play it rather than chose to play it is AI to you; for example, there is no requirement on you to interpret it as a signal (because this is "knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card").

An example with which Gordon (and Max) will be familiar: you open 1NT and after pass-pass-4♠-all pass, you lead something. Declarer wins it and leads a spade towards ♠Qx in the dummy. You are spared a guess as to what to play from your ♠Kx because partner has at some stage produced his (singleton) ♠A as a major penalty card. Why should you be the only defender in the room "allowed" to get the position right without needing to think?

The score might be adjusted under Law 23 or 50E3 some other such fatuity (it should be noted in passing that given Law 23, Law 50E3 is superfluous).

But why in blazes should it need to be adjusted? What is the point of making a Law that works perfectly well (because it leads the defenders always to crash their spade honours, just as they might have done had they not committed an infraction and as they should now do as offenders), and then saying "oh, we didn't mean to make defenders crash their honours, so we'll "clarify" the Law in such a way as to render it inconsistent and almost incomprehensible?

Of course the WBFLC minute has altered the Law. And not for the better.

David, I think you are forgetting the overriding philosophy of the most recent version of the Laws, which is that no player shall suffer as a consequence of having committed an infraction. Infractors must either benefit or, at worst, break even.

Indeed. Every time they publish a new set of Laws, I hope Kipling was right after all:

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return.

Then I reflect that the headings are not part of the Laws, and I go back down the pub.

Repeating myself, I think the intention of both Law 50E and the WBFLC is plain: you ARE allowed to mitigate the effect of the penalty card, you are NOT allowed to defend better than you would have done had the card never become a penalty card.

The WBFLC minute saying "may lead small from K Q J x when partner’s penalty card is the Ace" is intended to give an example of that - they mean that you're not obliged to crash honours with partner's penalty card. However, if partner's penalty card turns out to be a singleton honour which you might have crashed even if it weren't a penalty card, or if the honour underlead advantageously unblocks the suit (cashing out KQx opposite Ax for example) the director may adjust under 50E3.

pran, on 2015-May-14, 13:49, said:

I agree completely that if cashing the ace of hearts is suggested by the UI that partner attempted to lead the suit, you may not do so (if there is an LA). However, in this case I don't think it is suggested by that. Whether or not partner wanted to lead hearts, I still want to give him a diamond ruff. The only thing that stops me is the fact that he won't be allowed to ruff, which I believe is AI.

pran, on 2015-May-13, 23:40, said:

An artificial adjusted score, by definition, takes the results at other tables into account.

An adjusted score is supposed to be the score that would have been achieved had the irregularity (in this case: the TD error) not occurred.

That may be difficult to determine, but it is not difficult to set limitations.

Given that the auction was over and 4 tricks had been played (split 2-2), possible scores varied from 2♠+3 to 2♠-6, for a total of 9 possible scores. Of those 9 possible scores, most are impossible for the purpose of an AS: they require revokes or players throwing away obvious tricks.

In practice, there is only one question to answer: Will NS get a diamond ruff or won't they? This limits the possible outcomes to 2♠-1 (+50 NS) and 2♠= (-110 NS). VixTD gave NS 100% diamond ruff (+50 NS) and EW 100% no diamond ruff (+110 EW), giving both sides all the benefit of any possible doubt. Both sides got the best result they could possibly achieve.

These are concrete, real scores and they will have a corresponding percentage (whether you like it or not). Similarly, your 60% NS and 60% EW will have a corresponding table result. What if these were the percentages corresponding to +100 (3♠-2) and +90 (1NT c)? You will have given NS a better score than they could have ever achieved and EW a worse score than they could have ever achieved.

Rik

dburn, on 2015-May-14, 15:43, said:

No, it really isn't. Law 23 requires that the player who committed the irregularity could have known that it could well damage NOS. Law 50E3 doesn't: if information from the penalty card causes damage you adjust, whether this could have been foreseen or not.

Trinidad, on 2015-May-14, 23:50, said:

WHAT ? ? ? ?

Law 12 C 2 a said:

So it depends only on the responsibility for the irregularity, not on anything that happened or could happen at any other table.
(It may, however, be modified according to the session average for either of the involved contestants.)

campboy, on 2015-May-14, 23:41, said:

The fact that partner attempted to lead a heart may it make cashing the ace of hearts more attractive, but the fact that the card is a MPC does.

I don't see how the fact that partner will not be able to ruff is AI.

pran, on 2015-May-15, 00:37, said:

Have you ever tried to calculate a percentage without using scores from other tables?

So, any score in percentages takes the results at other tables into account. The same is true for any score in IMPs (or Cross-IMPs).

The law that you quote has an important condition: "When no result can be obtained". In this case, and all cases where the play has started, a result can be obtained. It may be a complicated weighted result, but not an impossible result.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that EW hadn't been playing 2♠, but were in 7♥XX played by West. In addition, the play hadn't gone relatively normal. Because West is annoyed with partner's bidding, and since he knows it will be a bottom, no matter what he does, West throws away high cards from his hand and dummy. In trick 7, NS end up with a penalty card and the TD makes his error. You think it is difficult to decide whether 7♥XX will be down 9, 10 or 11 tricks. (Not that it matters, all results lead to 100% for NS.)

So, now you give both sides 60%? When NS would have scored 100% without the TD error and EW would have scored 0%?

Rik

Trinidad, on 2015-May-15, 02:06, said:

I cannot believe that you are serious!

Maybe you need to know the results at the other tables in order to calculate respectively 40%, 50% and 60% of a top score on the Board - I do not.

Trinidad, on 2015-May-14, 23:50, said:

Does it? How so? And how does that contradict the principle Sven mentioned?

Vampyr, on 2015-May-15, 01:20, said:

Is there a missing "not" somewhere in the first sentence? Either before "make" (instead of "it") or after "does".