[lamford]

---

This hand is related by a reliable source, a member of the England semi-finalists in the Bermuda Bowl, although the exact hand has been guessed or reconstructed. East led the ace of spades out of turn and the director was called and gave declarer the five options, but did not make it clear that if declarer left the ace of spades as a major penalty card, then the fact that East held it would be UI to West. Declarer, not unreasonably, prevented a spade lead, but only had 12 tricks. The poster of the hand, on Facebook, thought that declarer should have left the ace of spades as a MPC and then East would have had to discard it on a top diamond. Others dissented, thinking that declarer is effectively barring a spade lead (because other leads are almost certain to be LAs) and also getting to take advantage of an MPC, and that is having his cake and eating it. Others thought that the fact that East had the ace of spades as an MPC was AI and West could lead a spade. Most posters were strong players but not usually directors. Some even thought that selecting "option 5", to leave the card as an MPC, was somehow unethical!

One or two posters thought that the TD should have made the options clearer to declarer. How would you rule, and would you consider a split score because of director error? It was not an EBU event, but I do not think that matters. And it does seem strange that this hand, which could indeed have been an "improbable hypothetical", appeared so soon after barmar's criticism of such posts. I have no reason to think this was constructed. I do not know whether a ruling was sought (other than the initial call) or whether one was given. The thread suggests that declarer did not "want to win" by selecting option 5 even if he could.

This post has been edited by lamford: 2015-May-26, 05:30

[steve2005]

I don't know what the ruling should but if their is any justice from the Bridge Gods it goes against NS. To play such a silly 2♠ convention and then not to have discussed if 4N is Blackwood/Keycard etc. is incredible.

[campboy]

I think it is the fact that partner has the card in question (UI), not just the fact that it is a MPC (arguably AI) that suggests leading a spade. So I agree that even if declarer places no restriction on lead, law 16B does.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2015-May-25, 02:50, said:

I think it is the fact that partner has the card in question (UI), not just the fact that it is a MPC (arguably AI) that suggests leading a spade. So I agree that even if declarer places no restriction on lead, law 16B does.

However, there was no breach of 16B because declarer prohibited a spade lead. The main question is whether the declarer should have been advised that if he left the ace of spades as an MPC, West would have to choose his lead "without sight of the ace of spades", and whether we adjust on that basis.

[blackshoe]

Quote

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

Quote

Law 10C1: When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all the options available.

Seems to me these, particularly 9B2, imply that the Director has to explain the UI ramifications of the MPC, so I would answer your first question "yes". As to whether we adjust, did the lack of this information cause damage? If so, yes, if not, no.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-25, 03:39, said:

As to whether we adjust, did the lack of this information cause damage? If so, yes, if not, no.

I think the bridge aspect is clear. If declarer had been told that the fact that East possessed the ace of spades was UI, then he should have been able to work out that leaving it as an MPC was to his advantage. I think we can also conclude that West cannot then lead a spade, as that would breach 16B and 73C, as campboy points out. It is also clear that declarer would make the contract with the ace of spades as a MPC and a non-spade lead. I presume we give a split score of 7NTx= for NS and 7NTx-1 for EW. I do not know whether it was teams or matchpoints, but others will know how it should be treated in each.

[par31]

lamford, on 2015-May-25, 05:05, said:

I think the bridge aspect is clear. If declarer had been told that the fact that East possessed the ace of spades was UI, then he should have been able to work out that leaving it as an MPC was to his advantage. I think we can also concluded that West cannot then lead a spade, as that would breach 16B and 73C. It is also clear that declarer would make the contract with the ace of spades as a MPC and a non-spade lead. I presume we give a split score of 7NT= for NS and 7NT-1 for EW. I do not know whether it was teams or matchpoints, but others will know how it should be treated in each.

Suppose we agree that if declarer had been given full and correct information by the TD before making his choice then the result would clearly have been 7NT=. Wouldn't it then be normal practice to award a score of 7NT= to both sides? This seems consistent with, e.g., the advice given by the EBU in White Book 8.82.3. (There, in a different situation, a weighted score is assigned but it has the same property that one side gets a worse score than they achieved at the table with the incorrect initial ruling.)

However, after looking at the Law Book, I'm worried about what the basis for doing this is. We're obviously adjusting under 82C which says that both sides should be treated as non-offending. But then 12B1 tells us:

Quote

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. 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 – but see C1(b).

So if we're treating both sides as non-offending and a result has been obtained at the table, what do we use to justify taking it away and awarding a worse result to one side?

[aguahombre]

The "damage" to Declarer was not the OLOOT. It was the TD's incomplete explanation. It seems, for that purpose neither side is the offending side and the natural result on any lead should be the result for both sides -- in keeping with 12B1.

[blackshoe]

There was damage to declarer in that he went down one. So clearly the declaring side get the score for 7NT=. The defending side achieved the score for 7NT-1 at the table. If they are to be treated as non-offending, they cannot be awarded a worse score. Split scores can be awarded (12C1{f}). This logic would lead to 7NT= for NS and 7NT-1 for EW. OTOH, 82C applies only when "no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally". If we ignore the director error, we would adjust to 7NT= for both sides, or let the table result 7NT-1 stand for both sides. So does ignoring the error lead to the board being scored "normally"?

[inquiry]

The contract wax not 7NT it was 7NTx, what does the double mean to the partnership. The argument that the double was made by the player who thought he was o lead is ui to the opening leader, so the question is what lead does the double call for (if any). The spade lead might be the required lead in many instances... proving your partnership requires a spade lead might take some proof or committee review.

[lamford]

inquiry, on 2015-May-25, 13:11, said:

The contract wax not 7NT it was 7NTx, what does the double mean to the partnership. The argument that the double was made by the player who thought he was o lead is ui to the opening leader, so the question is what lead does the double call for (if any). The spade lead might be the required lead in many instances... proving your partnership requires a spade lead might take some proof or committee review.

Indeed, the double may call for the first suit bid by dummy. I presume the declarer is allowed to ask for its meaning before exercising his option, but failure to do so is not the TD's concern. Some argue that the double on this auction asks for a heart lead, as declarer will usually need at least one spade trick. The unusual lead would be a heart.

And how do we adjust in a match? Is it again 50% of 7NTx= and 50% of 7NTx-1?

[barmar]

FYI, there's a thread on rec.games.bridge discussing this same hand. But he hasn't yet gone into detail about the TD did, he left that as a cliffhanger.

[Vampyr]

This is a bit of a conundrum. I do believe that the identity of a MPC should be UI to partner, but in this case it seems that declarer can effectively leave the card as a penalty card and forbid the lead of a spade. So he gets two options at once.

[Mbodell]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-25, 16:13, said:

This is a bit of a conundrum. I do believe that the identity of a MPC should be UI to partner, but in this case it seems that declarer can effectively leave the card as a penalty card and forbid the lead of a spade. So he gets two options at once.

That's only because on this hand it isn't that clear what West should lead (I'd guess diamond is most popular). If the auction had been different and East had bid spades and/or doubled an artificial spade suit for the lead, now there might be no LA to a spade, and now the declarer might need to forbid it to prevent it. Assuming partner's holding of the A is UI. I thought with MPC there is sort of a weird hybrid where it is supposed to be UI while I figure out what to lead, but if I figure out to lead a spade, I get to know that partner will be forced to play the A, so if I had Kx of spades or the like, I'm allowed to know not to lead the K.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-25, 16:13, said:

This is a bit of a conundrum. I do believe that the identity of a MPC should be UI to partner, but in this case it seems that declarer can effectively leave the card as a penalty card and forbid the lead of a spade. So he gets two options at once.

No he can't. If you exercise one of the lead options, the card ceases to be a penalty card. So he can't be forced to discard it, and the only way you'll make the contract is if you have 13 tricks outside spades.

Just looking at the NS hands, it seems likely. But then you run into the bad diamond break.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2015-May-26, 08:43, said:

No he can't. If you exercise one of the lead options, the card ceases to be a penalty card. So he can't be forced to discard it, and the only way you'll make the contract is if you have 13 tricks outside spades.

Just looking at the NS hands, it seems likely. But then you run into the bad diamond break.

She knows that, Barry -- being able to read the laws. Her comment was merely an observation of what has been established here in the thread. There is an extremely high probability that a non-spade lead is a logical alternative, and about 100% thereafter that the Spade bullet will be discarded on a fourth heart or on a Diamond. The combination of those things seems higher than the probability of 13 tricks sans a spade lead when East can keep his bullet.

That is exercising two options at once in Stef's world... and in mine.

[VixTD]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-25, 12:51, said:

If they are to be treated as non-offending, they cannot be awarded a worse score. Split scores can be awarded (12C1{f}). This logic would lead to 7NT= for NS and 7NT-1 for EW.

I think this is nonsense, but on another topic Vampyr agreed with you, and I didn't ever get round to asking why.

I think if it's clear that the double asked for a spade lead (and it's also clear that West has no good reason not to lead as requested) both sides should be given the score for 7NTX-1. If it's clear the double asked for a heart lead both sides should get 7NTX=. If there is doubt about the outcome (perhaps if the TD isn't sure which of the correct options declarer would take, or there are several possible legal leads for West) both sides should be given non-balancing weighted scores reflecting the probable outcomes. If your best guess is that West would lead a spade 70% of the time, give NS 60% of 7NTX-1 and 40% of 7NTX=, EW 80% of 7NTX-1 and 20% of 7NTX=.

[blackshoe]

VixTD, on 2015-May-27, 07:23, said:

I think this is nonsense, but on another topic Vampyr agreed with you, and I didn't ever get round to asking why.

I think if it's clear that the double asked for a spade lead (and it's also clear that West has no good reason not to lead as requested) both sides should be given the score for 7NTX-1. If it's clear the double asked for a heart lead both sides should get 7NTX=. If there is doubt about the outcome (perhaps if the TD isn't sure which of the correct options declarer would take, or there are several possible legal leads for West) both sides should be given non-balancing weighted scores reflecting the probable outcomes. If your best guess is that West would lead a spade 70% of the time, give NS 60% of 7NTX-1 and 40% of 7NTX=, EW 80% of 7NTX-1 and 20% of 7NTX=.

Note that I didn't say that should be the ruling, I said that the logic was one possible route to a ruling, and asked a couple of questions.

I don't disagree with the logic in your second paragraph, but why is your weighting for EW so much more favorable to that side than is the weighting of NS to that side? There seems a suggestion that 10% "benefit of the doubt" is somehow "standard".

[VixTD]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-27, 08:32, said:

I don't disagree with the logic in your second paragraph, but why is your weighting for EW so much more favorable to that side than is the weighting of NS to that side? There seems a suggestion that 10% "benefit of the doubt" is somehow "standard".

It's because law 82 requires us to consider both sides as non-offending, so any doubt in what score to assign is skewed slightly in favour of both sides. I'm not sure the 10% weighting away from what you think is the most likely outcome is written in stone, but I think it is pretty much standard in England. WB4.1.1.4:

Quote

This [the awarding of a weighted adjusted score] is often acceptable to the players as a method of assigning scores to achieve equity. The offenders must not gain from this, so the weighting should lean in the non-offenders’ favour. This is called ‘sympathetic weighting‘.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2015-May-27, 07:23, said:

I think this is nonsense, but on another topic Vampyr agreed with you, and I didn't ever get round to asking why.

I think if it's clear that the double asked for a spade lead (and it's also clear that West has no good reason not to lead as requested) both sides should be given the score for 7NTX-1. If it's clear the double asked for a heart lead both sides should get 7NTX=. If there is doubt about the outcome (perhaps if the TD isn't sure which of the correct options declarer would take, or there are several possible legal leads for West) both sides should be given non-balancing weighted scores reflecting the probable outcomes. If your best guess is that West would lead a spade 70% of the time, give NS 60% of 7NTX-1 and 40% of 7NTX=, EW 80% of 7NTX-1 and 20% of 7NTX=.

The most likely partnership agreement for the double is "no agreement". Who has discussed such a sequence? To me, logic dictates that the double says, "Do not make your normal lead here, partner. I have an ace that is going away if you don't find it." And that is all it is likely to say to any good player. The chance of declarer, who has a strong hand with spades, having 13 tricks outside spades is small, although on this hand he nearly did. Each of the other three suits has potential, but I think the diamond ace is likely to go away. On the principle that double asks for the first suit bid by dummy, then double asks for a heart. But never a spade.

Also West has to carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI, which is the sight of the ace of spades. Only if the double unequivocally asked for a spade lead would he be allowed to select that. I now think the correct adjustment is to 7NTx= for both sides and I now agree that this is treating both sides as non-offending. I gather from reading some other threads that declarer would not have wanted to "win this way". That is his prerogative; many think it sporting; some think it foolhardy. All should rule on the basis of law alone.