[blackshoe]

If use of UI is an infraction of law, then North, who broke the law, would not "get redress" in any case.

Quote

Law 81C2: The director has the duty to advise players of their rights and responsibilities under the laws.

Quote

Law 9B2: No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

[

Quote

b]Law 82C:[/b] If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose.

It seems to me that the implication of Laws 81C2 and 9B2, taken together, is that the director has a duty to explain the ramifications of his possession of UI to North. It follows that the ruling given, which left that explanation out, is incorrect by omission. Therefore, if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally (how would that work when UI was used?) Law 82C requires the TD to award an adjusted score.

If, Paul, you are saying that there is a rectification which will allow the board to be scored normally, please explain the legal process by which that is done. Perhaps via Laws 16A3, 16A4, 16B1{a}, 16B3, and 12C1? Is an assigned adjusted score under Law 12C1 a "normal" score?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-14, 08:51, said:

If, Paul, you are saying that there is a rectification which will allow the board to be scored normally, please explain the legal process by which that is done.

I thought the rectification was to assume we had told him that the fact that his partner had the ace of clubs is UI, and then we assume that he knew that, and made his normal lead, just as we would do if, for example, he had UI from the auction. It would not be a defence to say that he did not know a slow pass after, say, 1H-(1S)-4H-(4S), was UI, because the director had not told him. I think that adjusting to what would have happened without the director error is normal, but only if it is clear what would have happened.

[pran]

lamford, on 2014-September-14, 08:28, said:

I know that directors in the UK are taught to explain the UI of a withdrawn card, but, on reflection, I do not think North gets redress for his use of UI because he was not told. Generally, ignorance of the Law is no defence, and I think was wrong to suggest director error. All we are doing in disallowing the king of clubs switch is to restore equity, so I think we can have the same score for both sides, which would be normal play without the king of clubs switch.

You are aware, I hope, of

Law 11A said:

Action by Non-Offending Side
The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law.

so ignorance of the Law can indeed be a defence.

I find it obvious to apply similar consequences when the reason for the ignorance can be incomplete (or incorrect) information from the Director.

[RMB1]

pran, on 2014-September-14, 12:29, said:

I find it obvious to apply similar consequences when the reason for the ignorance can be incomplete (or incorrect) information from the Director.

We adjust for use of Unauthorized Information from a hesitation even if the player is not aware of the law and the director is not called (so the director is not in a position to inform the player of his obligations).

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2014-September-14, 12:53, said:

We adjust for use of Unauthorized Information from a hesitation even if the player is not aware of the law and the director is not called (so the director is not in a position to inform the player of his obligations).

I am with Robin. Law 16 tells the player what UI is, and if the director does not dot all the i's and cross all the t's we still adjust.

[pran]

RMB1, on 2014-September-14, 12:53, said:

We adjust for use of Unauthorized Information from a hesitation even if the player is not aware of the law and the director is not called (so the director is not in a position to inform the player of his obligations).

lamford, on 2014-September-14, 13:36, said:

I am with Robin. Law 16 tells the player what UI is, and if the director does not dot all the i's and cross all the t's we still adjust.

Do I take it then that you completely disregard Laws 9B2 and 11A as if they do not exist?

When the Director is called to the table as specified in Law 16B2 it is his responsibility to make sure the alleged offender is fully aware of his duties related to received UI! There is no question of dotting the i's and crossing the t's here.

If he is called to the table at a later time he must ascertain not only if there was UI but also if the receiver of such UI should have been aware of the legal consequences. (This is of course most relevant when the player in question is inexperienced.)

[lamford]

pran, on 2014-September-14, 13:54, said:

Do I take it then that you completely disregard Laws 9B2 and 11A as if they do not exist?

When the Director is called to the table as specified in Law 16B2 it is his responsibility to make sure the alleged offender is fully aware of his duties related to received UI! There is no question of dotting the i's and crossing the t's here.

If he is called to the table at a later time he must ascertain not only if there was UI but also if the receiver of such UI should have been aware of the legal consequences. (This is of course most relevant when the player in question is inexperienced.)

I agree there is director error, but it is not enough to prevent the board being scored normally, by deciding what would have happened without the director error, treating both sides as non-offending. We do not have the whole hand, but we can assume (for the purpose of this discussion) that the king of clubs lead should have been disallowed, and if we are able to work out what should have happened, we can score the board normally.

[aguahombre]

Some people seem to think that a consequence of not telling the opponents they cannot use UI is that they can use UI. Lamford is not one of those; neither am I.

The consequence of not telling a player in advance about UI restrictions is that we cannot penalize him if he does so. Adjusting back to equity is not a penalty.

Allowing the UI to be used because of Director failing to do his job, here, is penalty to the rest of the field of defenders.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2014-September-14, 14:57, said:

Some people seem to think that a consequence of not telling the opponents they cannot use UI is that they can use UI. Lamford is not one of those; neither am I.

Nor am I.

aguahombre, on 2014-September-14, 14:57, said:

The consequence of not telling a player in advance about UI restrictions is that we cannot penalize him if he does so. Adjusting back to equity is not a penalty.

No, it's not a penalty, but that's not the point. What is the legal adjustment? If there had been no director error (say for example that the director had not been called at the time the UI was passed) then you adjust according to Law 12C1{e} or Law 12C1{c}, depending on jurisdiction, or perhaps according to Law 12C1{d} or 12C{2). When there has been director error (and failure to completely explain all the ramifications of the infraction (the LOOT, in this case) is certainly director error, and achieving a "normal" result is not possible, you follow Law 82C.

aguahombre, on 2014-September-14, 14:57, said:

Allowing the UI to be used because of Director failing to do his job, here, is penalty to the rest of the field of defenders.

First, the rest of the field is irrelevant. Second, I won't speak for anyone else, but I am not suggesting we "allow the UI to be used". I'm suggesting that if we adjust under Law 82C, we treating the offending side as non-offending — and we explain to them in no uncertain terms that they're being treated as such solely because the director made a mistake. One which he should resolve never to repeat.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-September-14, 14:35, said:

I agree there is director error, but it is not enough to prevent the board being scored normally, by deciding what would have happened without the director error, treating both sides as non-offending. We do not have the whole hand, but we can assume (for the purpose of this discussion) that the king of clubs lead should have been disallowed, and if we are able to work out what should have happened, we can score the board normally.

So a score adjustment is not an abnormal result?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-14, 18:31, said:

So a score adjustment is not an abnormal result?

A score adjustment is just that. Artificial scores, like A+, etc...or the weighted scores on some planets, might be "abnormal results" IME. But, a score adjustment back to normal expectation doesn't seem to be an "abnormal" result.

[blackshoe]

I would have thought that a result obtained through actual bidding and play, without any irregularities, would be "normal," and that any time an irregularity occurs that requires a score adjustment, whatever you adjust to, that result is not normal. But I suppose I could be wrong.

[pran]

First of all the Word "Penalty" should not be used in this discussion. Whatever "Rectification" is ruled on the outcome is not a penalty.

Second: I take if for a fact that North was ignorant of the UI implications from his partner's penalty card.

When the Director was summoned (as stated in OP) we apply Law 82C (Director's error) and adjust the result, but effective only for EW. An adjustment effective for NS should not result in less than AVE+ to their side.

If the Director had not been summoned then Law 9B2 has been violated (by all four players), players on the non-offending side (EW) has taken "any action before summoning the Director" (by playing cards), so Law 11A applies and the right to rectification (for EW) "may be forfeited".

Consequently we adjust the result, but in this case effective only for NS! (for Equity)

If any penalty shall be imposed it should be to both sides for not summoning the Director when that is the situation.

[aguahombre]

So, the NOS ends up with equity, and the offending side gains over equity. Excellent lawyering.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2014-September-14, 14:35, said:

I agree there is director error, but it is not enough to prevent the board being scored normally, by deciding what would have happened without the director error, treating both sides as non-offending. We do not have the whole hand, but we can assume (for the purpose of this discussion) that the king of clubs lead should have been disallowed, and if we are able to work out what should have happened, we can score the board normally.

That means that we assign an AS, based on not leading the ♣K. But, as long as the ♣K is not lead, both sides are non-offending. Suppose this is the ACBL and declarer has a two way finesse, then a split score should be assigned.

If the TD had mentioned that the knowledge about the ♣A was unauthorized (and North would still lead the ♣K) then NS are offending and declarer (in the ACBL) will get the two way finesse right, for both sides, and the defenders may/will/should end up with a PP.

That means that, IMO, the fact that the TD erred by not mentioning the UI aspect can have significant consequences for the AS (as well as any PP).

As an aside, the one-liner "ignorance of the Laws is no excuse" does not apply to the world of bridge where it is the duty of the TD to explain the laws in case of an infraction (and there is no requirement to know the Laws in order to play the game). I think that in this case the TD didn't know himself that the knowledge of the ♣A was unauthorized to North. (I don't think the TD forgot, he simply didn't know. Many TDs don't know this.) If the TD doesn't know the Laws and doesn't explain them then it is hard to point a finger at the player who didn't know the Laws.

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2014-September-15, 01:58, said:

there is no requirement to know the Laws in order to play the game

When applying UI laws we assume that the player is aware of Law 16. The TD would not advise him before play began that "a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, an unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism (or now, I expect, cough)," could cause UI. We can rectify on this hand by disallowing the king of clubs switch. We also have director error, but treating both sides as non-offending does not mean we have to give one side an advantage over the rest of the room.

And if declarer had a two-way finesse, I would indeed award a weighted score if legal.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2014-September-15, 01:58, said:

As an aside, the one-liner "ignorance of the Laws is no excuse" does not apply to the world of bridge where it is the duty of the TD to explain the laws in case of an infraction (and there is no requirement to know the Laws in order to play the game). I think that in this case the TD didn't know himself that the knowledge of the ♣A was unauthorized to North. (I don't think the TD forgot, he simply didn't know. Many TDs don't know this.) If the TD doesn't know the Laws and doesn't explain them then it is hard to point a finger at the player who didn't know the Laws.

And considering the number of debates we've had here about precisely where the AI ends and UI begins when penalty cards are involved, I have some sympathy for this poor director. Debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a UI pin are common here, with limited concensus, so how is a TD in the trenches supposed to be sure of the answer?

[pran]

barmar, on 2014-September-15, 08:27, said:

And considering the number of debates we've had here about precisely where the AI ends and UI begins when penalty cards are involved, I have some sympathy for this poor director. Debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a UI pin are common here, with limited concensus, so how is a TD in the trenches supposed to be sure of the answer?

And to add to this sympathy I must admit that although I received my first formal license as TD back in 1980 and have been fairly active over the years it is only since I participated in the translation of the 2007 laws into Norwegian that I have been fully aware of all the implications from penalty cards.

Stïll, director's errors have their own consequences.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-14, 22:08, said:

I would have thought that a result obtained through actual bidding and play, without any irregularities, would be "normal," and that any time an irregularity occurs that requires a score adjustment, whatever you adjust to, that result is not normal. But I suppose I could be wrong.

I think "normal" result uses the normal meaning of "normal". "Typical" or "expected". Perhaps one that could well have occurred without the irregularity.

I'm about as normal as Norman Bates
With deformative traits - Eminem

[blackshoe]

Back to the original post, and subsequent information.

mjswinona, on 2014-September-12, 07:37, said:

West is declarer in a spade contract. South leads the Ace of clubs, out of turn at trick one. The director is called to the table and options are explained. West refuses a club lead. North leads a diamond, South picks up the club Ace and dummy is tabled, showing 4 clubs to the Queen. West wins the diamond lead in dummy and takes a losing spade finesse. North now plays the King of clubs from K,x, continues with a small club, won by partner's Ace and then ruffs the club return. The club King would never be led unless North knows partner holds the Ace. The director is called to the table and makes no adjustment. Is this the correct ruling?

mjswinona, on 2014-September-13, 06:45, said:

All non-vul. Dealer W. Auction: P,1H,X,2H,2S,all pass. North holds Axx, AQxxx, J10x, Kx. East holds QJxx, Kx, Axx, Q10xx. Experienced players.

---

Can't put in "x" for spots, so the actual spots may have been different. I doubt that matters.

Director is called for an opening lead out of turn. Law 54 applies. The director explains the five options. West, presumed declarer, chooses to play the hand, and to refuse the LOOT. The ♣A becomes a MPC (Law 50) and North is on lead. In particular, says Law 54D, Law 50D applies. Director turns his book to Law 50. Declarer elects to prohibit the lead of a club. Per Law 50D2{a}, the ♣A "is no longer a penalty card" and is picked up. Now the director should, but at the table did not, inform North that knowledge that South has the ♣A is UI to him, and that if the director judges, after the play, "that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side he shall award an adjusted score" (Laws 50E2&3). North leads a diamond at trick one, later regains the lead, and leads the ♣K. As the director, I would almost certainly judge in this case "that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side" and so would award an adjusted score. Since I apparently am not aware of my error, but assuming I am now somehow aware of Law 50E3, I would adjust to whatever I think West can make if North leads something other than a club at trick three. This being the ACBL, I would apply Law 12C1{e}, which may result in a split score. However, I have made an error in not explaining North's obligation regarding UI. So if I cannot find "a rectification that will allow the board to be scored normally"*, I should treat NS as non-offending (Law 82C), which means they get "the most favorable that was likely" for their side, instead of "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" (Law 12C1{e}). EW gets the same result they already got. I am not sure how this would be handled in a 12C1{c} (i.e., weighted score) jurisdiction. Perhaps a change in the weightings for the original OS, perhaps no change at all. Perhaps someone from such a jurisdiction can weigh in on this point.

The fact that there are situations (mostly, I think, where the director is not called when he should be) where I would "rule against" a contestant who may have been ignorant of the law when he violated it is not relevant to the ruling in this case.

One other thing: Lamford's hypothetical hand upthread demonstrates why North's lead of the ♣K must be rectified.

* In this case, the question is whether the original assigned adjusted score constitutes "normal" scoring, or whether "normal" scoring would have to result from actual play. At the moment I'm thinking the latter, but I don't have a clear basis in law for that (or for the former position either) so I'm open to discussion on that point. In the actual OP case, there was no adjusted score, so the director in fact made two errors: he didn't explain the ramifications of UI under Law 50E, and he didn't adjust the score under Law 50E3. Oh, and I suppose it's remotely possible that with full knowledge of all four hands the director might judge that the UI did not affect the result. Remotely because while I can see how NS might get two club tricks later, I don't see how they're going to get a club ruff if declarer has time to draw the rest of the trump.