[barmar]

Yeah, somehow I was thinking that making the wrong choice might rise to the level of Serious Error, so he loses redress. But a simple judgement error is not a SE. And even if it did, I think it might be judged to be related to the infraction, so he still doesn't lose redress.

[pran]

barmar, on 2014-October-19, 14:32, said:

Yeah, somehow I was thinking that making the wrong choice might rise to the level of Serious Error, so he loses redress. But a simple judgement error is not a SE. And even if it did, I think it might be judged to be related to the infraction, so he still doesn't lose redress.

When a player has several options after an opponent's irregularity the case is usually "closed" after he has selected one of his options.

So when he chooses to either forbid or require lead in a particular suit according to Law 50 D then that's it. and if he chooses to let the lead be free he simply postpones the final rectification till later during the play. He shall have no redress if his choice turns out unfortunate.

However, Law 50 E remains in force during the entire board so if offender's partner has used UI from the penalty card and thereby damaged declaring side there is still cause for redress.

A similar situation might occur when a player chooses to accept (or alternatively not accept) an insufficient bid or a call out of turn, and his choice turns out to be unfortunate. He will not have any redress from choosing an unfortunate alternative.

[blackshoe]

I said the NOS is entitled to redress under Law 50E. That means they're entitled to redress when 50E says they're entitled to redress, whatever choice the declarer makes about the disposition of the penalty card. If 50E doesn't say they're entitled to redress (because, presumably, the exposed card did not "convey such information…") then they don't get redress.

Is that clearer?

[dburn]

jallerton, on 2014-October-18, 02:34, said:

It seems to me that there are two possible interpretations here:

(a) If "Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card" means that I am allowed to know partner has ♠Q then I can lead whatever I like; or
(b) If "Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card" does not include allowing me to know partner has ♠Q then I must 'carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI' (Law 73C) and 'may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information' (Law 16B). In this case Law 73C tells me that I must not lead a low spade.

You are allowed to know that partner has to play the queen of spades. You are not, however, allowed to know that he has the queen of spades. Pran, who cannot grasp this point, is talking rhubarb, but he should be forgiven for this because the point is not all that easy to grasp.

[pran]

dburn, on 2014-October-21, 17:12, said:

You are allowed to know that partner has to play the queen of spades. You are not, however, allowed to know that he has the queen of spades.

Isn't that precisely what I have written?

dburn, on 2014-October-21, 17:12, said:

Pran, who cannot grasp this point, is talking rhubarb, but he should be forgiven for this because the point is not all that easy to grasp.

It is not easy to grasp for someone who fails to understand the logic behind that Law.

[dburn]

pran, on 2014-October-22, 03:14, said:

Isn't that precisely what I have written?

I don't believe so, but I am sorry if if have misinterpreted your position. Perhaps a more specific question will help us focus on the relevant issue.

South, declarer in a heart contract with plenty of trumps remaining in both hands, leads a spade towards ♠Jx on the table. West has ♠AK43 and East has ♠Q as a penalty card.

Now, West has no logical alternative to playing a spade, since revoking is not considered in that category. But he has logical alternatives among the spades he might play. Not knowing that East has ♠Q he would consider playing high, in case declarer had it; knowing that East must play ♠Q to this trick, he might well choose to play low.

May he do the latter? Or, put another way, if he does the latter and his side obtains an advantage thereby, should the Director adjust the score?

[pran]

dburn, on 2014-October-22, 06:51, said:

I don't believe so, but I am sorry if if have misinterpreted your position. Perhaps a more specific question will help us focus on the relevant issue.

South, declarer in a heart contract with plenty of trumps remaining in both hands, leads a spade towards ♠Jx on the table. West has ♠AK43 and East has ♠Q as a penalty card.

Now, West has no logical alternative to playing a spade, since revoking is not considered in that category. But he has logical alternatives among the spades he might play. Not knowing that East has ♠Q he would consider playing high, in case declarer had it; knowing that East must play ♠Q to this trick, he might well choose to play low.

May he do the latter? Or, put another way, if he does the latter and his side obtains an advantage thereby, should the Director adjust the score?

Sure he may:

Kaw 50 E said:

1. Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players.

2. Other information derived from sight of a penalty card is unauthorized for the partner of the player who has the penalty card (but authorized for declarer).
[...]

so everybody at the table is entitled to know that East must play the Queen to the trick when it becomes his turn to play.

(An interesting variant is if East has two penalty cards: the Queen and the 2 of spades:
Again everybody at the table is entitled to know that East must play one of his penalty (spade) cards when it becomes his turn to play, but now West has no knowledge of which of the two penalty cards declarer will eventually request. In fact declarer may request the Queen if West plays one of his high honours and the deuce if West plays small.)

[dburn]

In that case, I haven't misinterpreted your position and I do not agree with it. Suppose that the only successful defence is for East to win the first spade. At a table where East does not have a penalty card this defence may or may not be found; at a table where he does it will certainly be found.

[campboy]

dburn, on 2014-October-22, 08:03, said:

In that case, I haven't misinterpreted your position and I do not agree with it. Suppose that the only successful defence is for East to win the first spade. At a table where East does not have a penalty card this defence may or may not be found; at a table where he does it will certainly be found.

And then the score will be adjusted under Law 50E3. What's the problem?

[dburn]

I am not sure that pran believes the score should be adjusted, under Law 50E or any other. I myself believe that it is faintly ridiculous to allow a player to do something on the basis that we will then adjust the score as if he had not done it. True, many of the laws are ridiculous, but we should try to conceal this fact from hoi polloi.

[campboy]

dburn, on 2014-October-23, 06:40, said:

I am not sure that pran believes the score should be adjusted, under Law 50E or any other. I myself believe that it is faintly ridiculous to allow a player to do something on the basis that we will then adjust the score as if he had not done it. True, many of the laws are ridiculous, but we should try to conceal this fact from hoi polloi.

Well, that's not quite what happens. We allow West to play low (using the AI that his partner is required to play the queen), but then we adjust on the basis of what might have happened if East had not had a penalty card in the first place.

In particular, we will be considering the likely result if West played a high card but East was not required to drop the queen under it; this will generally be more favourable to EW than the result of forcing West to crash his partner's honour.

[dburn]

I see. So, we have a bunch of rules that specify what happens when someone has a penalty card. And then we adjust the score as if he didn't have a penalty card. Wonderful game, bridge. Must give it a try sometime.

[Trinidad]

The laws here have always seemed clear to me:

Quote

E. Information from a Penalty Card
1. Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players.

This part basically says that knowledge of the laws about penalty cards, as well as the fact that East does have a penalty card is AI to all players.

Quote

2. Other information derived from sight of a penalty card is unauthorized for the partner of the player who has the penalty card (but authorized for declarer).

All other information from seeing the penalty card is UI to partner. The first UI that comes to mind is the face value of the card.

So, my position has always been:
- A defender is allowed to know that his partner has a penalty card.
- He is allowed to know all legal consequences, e.g. that his partner must play it at his first legal opportunity, or that if he himself wins a trick, declarer may force or forbid a lead.
- What the penalty card is, is UI. (Not only is he not allowed to know it, he needs to "bend over backwards".)
- When partner has played the penalty card, the defender is allowed to take into account that his partner was forced to play it. As a concrete example, in this case, if partner leads the ♠Q, the defender does not have to assume that this promises the jack and denies the king (which is what he would do if partner would have had a free choice of plays, assuming standard leads). Instead, he can allow for partner to hold the king (except that West has the ♠K himself).

Rik

[Trinidad]

campboy, on 2014-October-23, 07:24, said:

Well, that's not quite what happens. We allow West to play low (using the AI that his partner is required to play the queen), but then we adjust on the basis of what might have happened if East had not had a penalty card in the first place.

Fortunately, Law 50E is easier. The fact that partner will have to play the card is AI, but the fact that the card is the ♠Q is UI (50E2). If the TD has instructed the players properly regarding the consequences of the penalty card, I would slap the player who dares to underlead AK with a PP, for blatant use of UI.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2014-October-23, 11:26, said:

Fortunately, Law 50E is easier. The fact that partner will have to play the card is AI, but the fact that the card is the ♠Q is UI (50E2). If the TD has instructed the players properly regarding the consequences of the penalty card, I would slap the player who dares to underlead AK with a PP, for blatant use of UI.

Rik

First you have to find a TD who properly clarifies the distinction between knowing Partner has to play a card (AI) and knowing Partner has that card (UI). I believe I could properly word that, but am unsure the recipient would grasp it.

Therefore, the PP is a big question mark.

[campboy]

dburn, on 2014-October-23, 10:14, said:

I see. So, we have a bunch of rules that specify what happens when someone has a penalty card. And then we adjust the score as if he didn't have a penalty card.

Well, that's a funny way of looking at it, since the thing that tells us to adjust the score is one of that "bunch of rules". But yes, the lawmakers, rightly or wrongly, favour laws which give OS some chance of getting a normal result, but sometimes require the TD to step in and restore equity.

[Bbradley62]

Trinidad, on 2014-October-23, 11:26, said:

Fortunately, Law 50E is easier. The fact that partner will have to play the card is AI, but the fact that the card is the ♠Q is UI (50E2). If the TD has instructed the players properly regarding the consequences of the penalty card, I would slap the player who dares to underlead AK with a PP, for blatant use of UI.

Rik

I still don't think that what 50E means. If 50E1 allows me to know that my partner must play ♠Q at his first legal opportunity, then I must also know that he holds that card. 50E2 prevents me from knowing that partner's spade holding is such that Q is the natural lead from his holding (presumably showing either shortness or an honor sequence).

[weejonnie]

Bbradley62, on 2014-October-23, 13:47, said:

I still don't think that what 50E means. If 50E1 allows me to know that my partner must play ♠Q at his first legal opportunity, then I must also know that he holds that card. 50E2 prevents me from knowing that partner's spade holding is such that Q is the natural lead from his holding (presumably showing either shortness or an honor sequence).

here is correspondence on something very similar
To: Jeremy Dhondy
Although Law 50 gives instruction as to the procedure with a penalty card, I need some clarification – particularly 50E.

Suppose that partner’s penalty card is a Jack of clubs, I hold the AKQX and want to get across to partner’s hand.

1) Can I use the information that partner has the Jack to underlead my AKQ?
2) Can I use the information that partner has the jack to select clubs as the suit to get across to partner’s hand? Or must there be no LA?
3) For completeness – I assume that I cannot use the Jack of clubs as a potential suit preference (e.g. partner wants Spades) or count (e.g. partner has an even number)
4) Is there a conflict between 50E3 and 10C4 in any of these scenarios? I am assuming the play of the Jack was not intending to tell partner that this was an entry (law 23)

Many thanks


Dear John,
Your email has come to me for a reply. The careful wording of your questions 1 & 2 suggests to me that you already have a very good understanding of this law, so I hope it will suffice if I just say yes to Q1 and no to Q2 (but do feel free to get back to me if that’s not enough!)
Again for Q3 you are correct: the law says “Other information derived from sight of a penalty card is unauthorized for the partner of the player who has the penalty card (but authorized for declarer)“ so that would include any suit-preference or distributional information that might have been contained in its intended role as a discard.

As for Q4, I do not see a conflict but it is for the director to make a decision based on the facts of each particular case. Indeed 10C4 directs us to Law 50, and I think it is the interplay between these two laws that leads us to the answers to your first two questions.

Do get back to me if you think I have missed anything.

Regards,

Gordon Rainsford
Chief Tournament Director

[jallerton]

Trinidad, on 2014-October-23, 11:14, said:

The laws here have always seemed clear to me:

This part basically says that knowledge of the laws about penalty cards, as well as the fact that East does have a penalty card is AI to all players.

All other information from seeing the penalty card is UI to partner. The first UI that comes to mind is the face value of the card.

So, my position has always been:
- A defender is allowed to know that his partner has a penalty card.
- He is allowed to know all legal consequences, e.g. that his partner must play it at his first legal opportunity, or that if he himself wins a trick, declarer may force or forbid a lead.
- What the penalty card is, is UI. (Not only is he not allowed to know it, he needs to "bend over backwards".)

Sorry? Are you saying that a player is supposed to assume that his partner be forced to play a particular card to this trick, but is not allowed to know which one? Or indeed to "bend over backwards", he is supposed to assume that his partner will be forced to play some other random card to this trick?

Quote

Fortunately, Law 50E is easier. The fact that partner will have to play the card is AI, but the fact that the card is the ♠Q is UI (50E2). If the TD has instructed the players properly regarding the consequences of the penalty card, I would slap the player who dares to underlead AK with a PP, for blatant use of UI.

Rik

That could be interesting. It sounds like you'll be awarding PPs to these two experienced TDs:

campboy, on 2014-October-17, 05:02, said:

I don't think there is a UI problem here. Presumably a spade lead is clear on this hand, and once the player has decided to lead a spade it is AI that partner will be forced to play the queen on this trick. So the player is allowed to lead a low card. The TD may then decide to adjust the score under 50E3, however.

pran, on 2014-October-17, 06:39, said:

There indeed seems to be.

The knowledge that South must play the SQ at his first legal time to play this card is AI, but the fact that he has the SQ and intended to make an opening lead with this card is UI to North.

Only if North has no logical alternative other than to leading a spade (of any rank) to trick one may he lead a spade in this situation (and only in that case may he lead a low spade).

[Trinidad]

Bbradley62, on 2014-October-23, 13:47, said:

I still don't think that what 50E means. If 50E1 allows me to know that my partner must play ♠Q at his first legal opportunity, then I must also know that he holds that card.

But law 50E1 doesn't allow you to know that your partner must play the ♠Q at his first legal opportunity.

It allows you to know that partner has a card that he needs to play at his first legal opportunity. You are even allowed to know that it is the card that is lying face up on the table. But the knowledge that the card that is lying face up is the ♠Q is UI (50E2).

Rik