[lamford]

---

Matchpoints. Opening lead ♣2. Table result 3NT-1

"You're exposing yourself, again", said South, a North London Club's Secretary Bird, to East, the club's weakest member, as West was about to lead on the above hand. "Director, please". "How c-c-can I help?" said the TD, with a slight stutter, as he arrived at the table "When, writing down the contract, East held the ace of clubs in his palm so that it could have been seen by his partner", averred SB. "Right, I think that is now a major penalty c-c-card", responded the TD. "Correct!" replied SB, and I won't wait for you to read out the relevant law, or we won't have time to play the second board", he continued, rudely. "I will exercise the option to leave the ace of clubs as a major penalty card, and let West lead anything he likes." "And I need not remind West of his Law 16 and Law 73 duties." West had been on the excellent EBU club director course, and now asked the TD to clarify whether the fact that East had the ace of clubs was AI or UI. "This is c-c-complicated", replied the TD. "As I understand it, you must first s-s-select the s-s-suit to lead and are then allowed to know that if you lead a c-c-club, East must play the ace of c-c-clubs." West, a fine player, led the two of clubs and RR, East, won with the ace, and saw little point in continuing clubs as South was "marked" with one honour. He switched to the jack of diamonds, the only defence as it transpired. SB won in dummy and played a second club, his best chance, but West won, cashed a third club, and exited with a diamond without cashing the fourth club. The double squeeze now no longer operated, and SB emerged with only eight tricks. He opened the traveller to find he had a complete bottom, and one or two pairs had made an overtrick on the king of clubs lead, presumably overtaken.

SB was apoplectic. "You selected from logical alternatives one that was demonstrably suggested by the UI", he bellowed at West. "There was also TD error in that he should have advised you that if information from the ace of clubs benefited the non-offenders the TD could award an adjusted score under 50E3." West was unrepentant. "Law 50D2(b) states 'may lead any card', and that specific law takes precedence over other more general laws", he replied. How do you rule? [This is a constructed and embellished version of a similar case from a recent match]

[helene_t]

Agree with West.

[campboy]

I think that i) the lead is permitted, but ii) 50E3 applies and we must award an adjusted score. So I adjust based on what might have happened if there had been no penalty card. Since declarer might then make either 9 or 10 tricks, I would give some weighted score between the two.

[pran]

I cannot see how this "marvellous" defence in any way could be considered a consequence of (e.g. suggested by UI from) the irregularity. Table result stands.

[blackshoe]

Aside from anything else, SB's behavior is completely unacceptable. 25% of a top disciplinary penalty, times 2.

[barmar]

I've edited the title, as per the forum rule change that was discussed a couple of months ago here

[aguahombre]

So, if I post a hypothetical, would it have "(AH) added to the title?

[lamford]

pran, on 2015-July-14, 05:58, said:

I cannot see how this "marvellous" defence in any way could be considered a consequence of (e.g. suggested by UI from) the irregularity. Table result stands.

The relevant clause does appear to Law 50E3:

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

Campboy believes that, if EW would have led the king of clubs but for the infraction, one adjusts to what would have happened without the infraction. I agree with him, and if that is so, then Law 50E3 should just read, more simply, "if knowledge of the penalty card damages the non-offending side then the TD shall award an adjusted score." Effectively that is making the penalty card UI and the laws (and WBFLC minutes) contradict each other in that one is not allowed to lead low from KQJx, and gain by doing so, after all.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-14, 08:49, said:

Aside from anything else, SB's behavior is completely unacceptable. 25% of a top disciplinary penalty, times 2.

SB would argue that the Etiquette section states:
As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:
<snip> 5. summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants.

This is a much weaker requirement than "must not" or "may not", and only merits a warning.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-July-14, 17:32, said:

SB would argue that the Etiquette section states:
As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:
<snip> 5. summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants.

This is a much weaker requirement than "must not" or "may not", and only merits a warning.

In the ACBL, we have this thing called "Zero Tolerance". In the EBU it's called "Best Behaviour at Bridge". Aside from that, this kind of thing is the SB's normal mode. He will have got his warning already.

[pran]

lamford, on 2015-July-14, 17:28, said:

The relevant clause does appear to Law 50E3:

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

Campboy believes that, if EW would have led the king of clubs but for the infraction, one adjusts to what would have happened without the infraction. I agree with him, and if that is so, then Law 50E3 should just read, more simply, "if knowledge of the penalty card damages the non-offending side then the TD shall award an adjusted score." Effectively that is making the penalty card UI and the laws (and WBFLC minutes) contradict each other in that one is not allowed to lead low from KQJx, and gain by doing so, after all.

If declarer had requested a club lead from West then East would have picked up his Ace, and the fact that East holds this card and desired to lead it would have been UI to West. In that case the only normal lead from West would probably have been the ♣King.

However, the important question now is whether a Club lead is still a normal lead and not as such suggested by the UI that West wanted to lead a Club or the fact that East has this penalty card. I think we must agree that it is.

But as East in this situation must follow suit with his Ace (a fact that is AI to West), West is no longer under any obligation to lead his King once he has selected to lead a Club. West is free to lead any of his Clubs because he "knows" (legally) that East must follow suit with his Ace.

That is why Campboy's (alleged) logic fails.

[campboy]

The WB prescribes a DP for the first offence of "shouting at anyone" (2.8.4.e), which seems to cover it without worrying about what he said to the TD.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2015-July-14, 17:28, said:

Campboy believes that, if EW would have led the king of clubs but for the infraction, one adjusts to what would have happened without the infraction. I agree with him, and if that is so, then Law 50E3 should just read, more simply, "if knowledge of the penalty card damages the non-offending side then the TD shall award an adjusted score." Effectively that is making the penalty card UI and the laws (and WBFLC minutes) contradict each other in that one is not allowed to lead low from KQJx, and gain by doing so, after all.

No, it's genuinely different from that. If everything about the penalty card was UI, then leading the 2 would be an infraction and we would have to adjust based on West leading the king while the ace still had to be played.

But as I interpret the law, the information West used is AI, so he is allowed to lead the 2. Now the only infraction was exposing the ace. Since that infraction clearly damaged NOS, we adjust to what would have happened without it, i.e. West leads a high club and East may play either card.

Pran, your argument is nonsense because law 50E3 applies whenever information from the exposed card damages NOS, even if that information is AI. Without the information from the exposed card they couldn't have found this defence.

[pran]

campboy, on 2015-July-15, 02:33, said:

Pran, your argument is nonsense because law 50E3 applies whenever information from the exposed card damages NOS, even if that information is AI.

True.

campboy, on 2015-July-15, 02:33, said:

Without the information from the exposed card they couldn't have found this defence.

but why not?

(♣K > ♣A > ♦ > ♣ > ♦ ?)

[campboy]

pran, on 2015-July-15, 05:26, said:

but why not?

I said they couldn't have found this defence. I haven't looked at the board closely enough to know if there are other plausible winning defences. If there are, then an adjustment would include some proportion of 8 tricks.

[lamford]

pran, on 2015-July-15, 05:26, said:

True.
but why not?

(♣K > ♣A > ♦ > ♣ > ♦ ?)

Leading the king of clubs is fatal, as the double squeeze cannot be broken up whether or not East overtakes. If East overtakes, they need to break up the double squeeze to save the overtrick. A small club lead is only plausible by using the UI of the fact that the penalty card is specifically the ace of clubs (which is other information derived from the sight of the penalty card other than the fact that it has to be played if I lead a club). I disagree with campboy's interpretation as to whether the lead is legal, whatever the WBFLC minute might say. Leading a small club is intending to avoid crashing the club honours, but East must then switch to a diamond, or declarer can make by playing a second club himself. It is not a case that the defence might still get it right after the king of clubs lead. There is no recovery.

[lamford]

pran, on 2015-July-15, 02:19, said:

West is no longer under any obligation to lead his King once he has selected to lead a Club. West is free to lead any of his Clubs because he "knows" (legally) that East must follow suit with his Ace.

We all agree that the king of clubs is the only LA for an opening lead without the potential UI. The AI is that East has to play the ace of clubs if we lead a club. The UI is that he has the ace of clubs. It is often the case that we have both AI and UI. Partner opens 1NT and is on lead. He takes ages to lead and we play him for a doubleton rather than a singleton. The UI is that he took ages. The AI is that he opened 1NT and therefore does not have a singleton. In that case, I believe the AI "trumps" the UI.

However, here, we know that partner has to play the ace of clubs if we lead a club. Therefore the AI tells us that we can lead the two of clubs. However, it is UI that partner has the ace of clubs. The UI prevents us from leading a small club, and I believe that the UI trumps the AI in this case.

The other question is "Was there director error?" The TD should have advised West that the fact that his partner had the ace of clubs was UI, and that he had to carefully avoid taking any advantage of this. I would incline towards 3NT-1 for EW and 3NT= for NS.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2015-July-15, 02:24, said:

The WB prescribes a DP for the first offence of "shouting at anyone" (2.8.4.e), which seems to cover it without worrying about what he said to the TD.

There does not appear to be a DP for bellowing at someone, only for shouting. There is a significant difference; the meaning in the OP was "to utter in a loud deep voice."

[pran]

lamford, on 2015-July-15, 07:39, said:

We all agree that the king of clubs is the only LA for an opening lead without the potential UI. The AI is that East has to play the ace of clubs if we lead a club. The UI is that he has the ace of clubs. It is often the case that we have both AI and UI. Partner opens 1NT and is on lead. He takes ages to lead and we play him for a doubleton rather than a singleton. The UI is that he took ages. The AI is that he opened 1NT and therefore does not have a singleton. In that case, I believe the AI "trumps" the UI.

However, here, we know that partner has to play the ace of clubs if we lead a club. Therefore the AI tells us that we can lead the two of clubs. However, it is UI that partner has the ace of clubs. The UI prevents us from leading a small club, and I believe that the UI trumps the AI in this case.

The other question is "Was there director error?" The TD should have advised West that the fact that his partner had the ace of clubs was UI, and that he had to carefully avoid taking any advantage of this. I would incline towards 3NT-1 for EW and 3NT= for NS.

Your Logic is good as a possible argument against leading a Club because of UI.

But once a Club lead is accepted then West is explicitly allowed to Select which of his Clubs to lead from the knowledge that East must play his Ace to that trick.

And as I have already said earlier: If Declarer had requested West to lead a Club then (according to your logic) he would have been required to lead his King because the knowledge that East holds the Ace (no longer a penalty card) would now be UI.

[StevenG]

campboy, on 2015-July-15, 06:20, said:

I said they couldn't have found this defence. I haven't looked at the board closely enough to know if there are other plausible winning defences. If there are, then an adjustment would include some proportion of 8 tricks.

Double dummy, the lead of a high club or the J♥ gives 9 tricks, all other leads give 8.