[lamford]

---

IMPs; Table Result 3NT-1.

There was a bit of a disagreement here at a local club last week, with SB, South on this hand, being "hoist with his owne petar" as the bard might have said. Before West could lead to 3NT, East was writing down the contract and exposed the ace of clubs when reaching for his pen. At least it could be seen by SB, who was quick to argue that it could have been seen by his partner, although the latter denied it. The TD came, ruled it was exposed, and SB decided to leave the ace of clubs as an MPC. West, familiar with the "Lille minute", led a low club, and the contract went one off on the obvious defence. In the other room the contract made when West led a top club and East played low, as it was far from obvious what West should do next. SB was not happy, especially when West goaded him by saying that he would have definitely made the contract if he had insisted on a club lead. The ace of clubs would be picked up, and West would have to lead a top club (as the fact that East had the ace of clubs would be unauthorised). Also West would be unable to continue with a small club for the same reason! How do you rule?

[1eyedjack]

Sorry, what was South’s case?

[lamford]

1eyedjack, on 2014-March-24, 14:09, said:

Sorry, what was South’s case?

South's case was that, despite the express wording of the Lille minute, the TD should impose a Law 50E adjustment. The TD replied that even if he decided that a spade lead was an LA to the club lead (which he did not really think was the case), declarer would win in dummy and run the heart. Now there would be no LA to a club, nor to a low club, as partner is now known to have the ace of clubs from the AI that South has AK, A in the majors.

[blackshoe]

When the Lille minute was written, Law 50E didn't exist. Since 1998, there have been two other pertinent minutes, one in 2008 and one in 2010. In particular, the 2008 minute says that Law 50E3 may still be applied, even if there was no "use of UI" in the play. Note, however, that the award of an adjusted score is dependent on the TD's determination that there was damage. It sounds, from post #3, as though the TD determined there was no damage (see Law 12B1).

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-24, 23:12, said:

When the Lille minute was written, Law 50E didn't exist. Since 1998, there have been two other pertinent minutes, one in 2008 and one in 2010. In particular, the 2008 minute says that Law 50E3 may still be applied, even if there was no "use of UI" in the play. Note, however, that the award of an adjusted score is dependent on the TD's determination that there was damage. It sounds, from post #3, as though the TD determined there was no damage (see Law 12B1).

Well, the "information conveyed by the penalty card" (that East had the ace of clubs) DID damage the non-offending side, because West might well have led the king of clubs without the "information" and might well have not then found the right defence. As he is now allowed to lead a small club (because it is deemed a top club is the only LA for an opening lead), the NOS are damaged. So the Lille minute should have been deleted, and West should not be allowed to know that East is forced to play the ace of clubs on the first round in selecting which club to lead. In effect, the Lille minute and Law 50E contradict each other and cannot co-exist. I think SB is right here, and the TD must adjust, despite the upvotes for 1eyedjack. The Lille minute is gobbledygook, much like other parts of the Laws. How can one both be unaware that partner has the ace of clubs but be aware that he has to play it on the first round of clubs at the same time?

If something goes wrong at the plant, blame the guy who can't speak English. - Homer Simpson.

[campboy]

No, they can and should both exist.

The point of certain information being AI is to stop OS having to damage themselves further, such as by playing high cards which are going to crash with partner's penalty card. But in rare cases this AI allows OS to get a better score than they would have done without the penalty card. In this case the irregularity which caused the penalty card damaged NOS, and we adjust to what would have happened without that irregularity.

Like you, I would adjust in this case. But it important to realise that leading a low club is still legal. It is the exposure of the ace of clubs which was illegal, and if that (and the consequent AI) damages NOS, we adjust the score.

When we adjust via 50E3, we adjust to what would have happened without the penalty card, not what would have happened if the AI from the penalty card had not been used (because using the AI is legal). So here we do not adjust based on West leading the king and East being forced to play the ace; we adjust based on West leading the king and East playing normally.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-March-25, 08:09, said:

Like you, I would adjust in this case. But it important to realise that leading a low club is still legal. It is the exposure of the ace of clubs which was illegal, and if that (and the consequent AI) damages NOS, we adjust the score.

However, 50E states: If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side he shall award an adjusted score.

It does not state: If the Director judges that the non-offending side would have done better if the penalty card had not occurred.

While I agree with you it SHOULD say that, I do not think that you can adjust on the basis on which you are advocating adjusting.

[campboy]

I don't understand the distinction you are drawing. Damage is defined in Law 12B1.

Quote

Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

The only infraction here is whatever caused the penalty card to occur in the first place, so there is damage if and only if the non-offending side, because of the infraction, did worse than they would have done if the penalty card had not occurred.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-March-27, 09:59, said:

I don't understand the distinction you are drawing. Damage is defined in Law 12B1.

The only infraction here is whatever caused the penalty card to occur in the first place, so there is damage if and only if the non-offending side, because of the infraction, did worse than they would have done if the penalty card had not occurred.

The distinction is that the damage needs to be caused by the "information conveyed by the penalty card" not by the "creation of the penalty card". The information conveyed by the penalty card is that East has it. That information is unauthorised and if West uses the information, then damage may well be caused. I think we both agree that there is no LA to an initial club lead, and you seem to think that the low club lead is legal. Therefore the information conveyed by the penalty card is not what damaged the NOS, it was the creation of the penalty card that damaged them. Or are you saying that if one leads low, and it damages the NOS, then the TD adjusts. If you are saying that, then I agree with you. But that is not what you wrote.

[campboy]

Yes, that's why I added the phrase "(and the consequent AI)" in my post which you quoted (though perhaps "via" would have been a better word than "and"). The creation of the penalty card gives OS some extra information and, in order for a 50E3 adjustment, that information must be the reason for NOS getting a worse score. That appears to be the case here.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-March-27, 10:26, said:

Yes, that's why I added the phrase "(and the consequent AI)" in my post which you quoted (though perhaps "via" would have been a better word than "and"). The creation of the penalty card gives OS some extra information and, in order for a 50E3 adjustment, that information must be the reason for NOS getting a worse score. That appears to be the case here.

I am pleased therefore that we both agree to adjust, perhaps on a slightly different basis, but it worries me that some seemingly eminent posters upvote "Sorry, what was South's case?". Given that everyone else seemed to understand the issue, I presume those upvoters would not even entertain adjusting. I hope I do not accidentally enter an event that they are directing; I would not intentionally do so.

[blackshoe]

Sooner or later, Paul, if you refuse to enter events directed by people who disagree with you, you're going to have to quit playing bridge.