[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2013-August-19, 08:08, said:

With either of the other hands I gave, South has no better line than trying to find West with Kx of diamonds suffering from acute attention disorder. Even clubs 3-3 or the jack falling would not help him, as there will still be a loser outside trumps. But you do not let West off because South did not choose a better line. All that is required to force him to play the king of diamonds is that it is an LA. Without any infraction.

I was talking about the line on the hand with a 5-1 club fit and no you don't have a loser outside trumps, it will go on the 5th club all being well.

Also even in the 5-2 case, a stiff king of diamonds and 3-3 clubs will get you home. Isn't it better to go for the legitimate shot ?

S choosing an odd line should get you off as you assume he's douing it for a valid reason (maybe not in a speedball, depends who it is and how many they've had).

[lamford]

fbuijsen, on 2013-August-19, 08:35, said:

The only way I can interpret law 50E and the minute/comment with it, is that west (i.e. partner of the MPC holder) is, in all situations, allowed to know that when ♦ are played, partner will play the ♦A, and thus play low.

I was surprised to see campboy upvoting you on the post containing this comment, as he would adjust if the ace of diamonds, a MPC, was singleton, but you think "in all situations" he is allowed to play low.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-August-19, 19:48, said:

I was surprised to see campboy upvoting you on the post containing this comment, as he would adjust if the ace of diamonds, a MPC, was singleton, but you think "in all situations" he is allowed to play low.

So what? I think you are allowed to play low, but then would adjust if the ace is singleton under 50E3. The basis for the adjustment is that NOS were damaged by the exposed card, not that there was any subsequent irregularity. Since the number of tricks NOS would take without the LOOT is uncertain, I would give a weighted ruling.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-August-20, 03:15, said:

So what? I think you are allowed to play low, but then would adjust if the ace is singleton under 50E3. The basis for the adjustment is that NOS were damaged by the exposed card, not that there was any subsequent irregularity. Since the number of tricks NOS would take without the LOOT is uncertain, I would give a weighted ruling.

So what "other information" derived from the sight of the penalty card are they talking about in 50E2? Do you think it is authorised that his partner has the ace of diamonds, or only authorised if either side leads a diamond? In this example, the reason he chose to play low is that his partner has the ace of diamonds, not that he has to play it on this trick. If the penalty card had been the jack of diamonds, he would have risen. Because his partner might not have the ace of diamonds, not because the jack of diamonds needs to be played on this trick.

[fbuijsen]

lamford, on 2013-August-20, 04:06, said:

So what "other information" derived from the sight of the penalty card are they talking about in 50E2? Do you think it is authorised that his partner has the ace of diamonds, or only authorised if either side leads a diamond? In this example, the reason he chose to play low is that his partner has the ace of diamonds, not that he has to play it on this trick. If the penalty card had been the jack of diamonds, he would have risen. Because his partner might not have the ace of diamonds, not because the jack of diamonds needs to be played on this trick.

He is authorized to know that partner has a MPC and that it is the ♦A. That makes playing the ♦K is simply absurd (unless it's some kind of unblocking play), since he knows partner is gonna play the A anyway. It is also authorized not to lead a suit trying to give partner a ruff, when you know he won't be allowed to ruff (because he has to play the ♦A. (EDIT: scratch that remark -- I'd temporarily forgotten that diamonds are trump ....)

What is unauthorized is, for example, deciding your lead based on the knowledge of partner's possession of the ♦A. Let's say the contract is 7NT, and it is clear from the bidding that declarer has a long running suit that will give him 13 tricks from the top. So the opening lead needs to find partner's ace (if he has any). Now it would be really helpful to lead the ♦A out of turn, if it allows partner to find the diamond lead (it's a bad example, I know, since declarer can simply forbid the diamond lead).

Campboy's reason for adjustment, as I understand it, is still different: it's not because of th use of UI, but because exposing the ♦A has altered the way in which the hand played out from what would have happened without that offense, and is therefore damaging the NOS. This is disputable, since arguably the declarer could have prevented the damage by choosing a different option to handle the LOOT, but it is not about UI.

This post has been edited by fbuijsen: 2013-August-20, 07:43

[lamford]

fbuijsen, on 2013-August-20, 04:52, said:

He is authorized to know that partner has a MPC and that it is the ♦A. That makes playing the ♦K is simply absurd (unless it's some kind of unblocking play), since he knows partner is gonna play the A anyway. It is also authorized not to lead a suit trying to give partner a ruff, when you know he won't be allowed to ruff (because he has to play the ♦A.

This seems to be the WBFLC interpretation but it is inconsistent with the penalty if East had simply played the ace of diamonds prematurely on the first round of trumps. It would still become a MPC but the penalty then would be:

LAW 57: PREMATURE LEAD OR PLAY
A. Premature Play or Lead to Next Trick
When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn before his partner has played, the card so led or played becomes a major penalty card, and declarer selects one of the following options. He may:
1. require offender’s partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led, or <snip>

So, East does much better to make an opening lead of the ace of trumps out of turn than to play it on the first round of diamonds before his partner has played. Whether or not it is a singleton. The absurdness of playing the king when partner has played the ace is disregarded by Law 57. And the example where one is allowed to lead low from KQJx when partner has an exposed ace in the suit seems equally absurd, and then Law 50E3 has to be used to adjust when it actually works.

I have always thought one was allowed to know that partner had to play the ace of diamonds (when it is an MPC) at the first opportunity, but one was not allowed to know he possessed it!

[fbuijsen]

Well, yeah, there are various "penalties" involved when you do something you shouldn't. These are designed to ensure that the offending side doesn't benefit from their infraction, but doesn't ensure that they may not suffer damage from the director action resulting from it. In the L57 case you may suffer a bit more for this specific case, but that's not really important.

The way it was explained to me, these laws are designed so that the director can apply the law without needing to analyse extensively what the exact equity situation is for each case. Basically you apply a big hammer to give the situation a good hard whack. If that hurts the offenders' score on the hand, tough. As long as you're sure they don't benefit from it (which is why there is the catchall bit about UI in L50 -- it takes away a route to benefit that wasn't closed by the rest of the law).

[gnasher]

fbuijsen, on 2013-August-20, 07:49, said:

The way it was explained to me, these laws are designed so that the director can apply the law without needing to analyse extensively what the exact equity situation is for each case.

But the laws trivially fail in that objective, because even when the offenders are due to receive an awful score from the penalty defined in the Laws, they are still constrained by the UI, so the director can still expect to have analyse the exact equity situation. The only difference is that he's considering what equity existed after the application of the penalty.

[fbuijsen]

gnasher, on 2013-August-20, 16:32, said:

But the laws trivially fail in that objective, because even when the offenders are due to receive an awful score from the penalty defined in the Laws, they are still constrained by the UI, so the director can still expect to have analyse the exact equity situation. The only difference is that he's considering what equity existed after the application of the penalty.

It works quite fine for that purpose in nearly all cases. Only in very unusual cases, such as possibly this one, the NOS will fell they are still damaged after application, in which case the director has to make a more intensive investigation afterwards anyway.

[lamford]

fbuijsen, on 2013-August-20, 23:58, said:

It works quite fine for that purpose in nearly all cases. Only in very unusual cases, such as possibly this one, the NOS will fell they are still damaged after application, in which case the director has to make a more intensive investigation afterwards anyway.

I can't agree. In the example given in the minute, which is presumably not a very unusual case as it was chosen as an example, the director will quite likely have to examine whether the NOS was damaged when someone led low from KQJx opposite Ax when the ace is an MPC. And a competent director will always investigate whether the NOS was damaged; it is not the role of the players to do that.

On a much more important subject, does the BBO forum prefer "an MPC" (acronym verbalised) or "a MPC" (word verbalised)?

And on a minor side issue, the statement made by directors after a LOOT (this reads better than "an LOOT", suggesting that the rule should be to verbalise the acronym if it reads like a normal word, even though it might not be allowed in Scrabble), as advised by the EBU County Directors' course, is wrong. That is "the partner of the person with an MPC is allowed to know that his partner's MPC must be played at the first opportunity, but is not allowed to know that his partner possesses that card". This is at best confusing, and at worst untrue. When the suit of the MPC is led by either side, it seems he IS allowed to know his partner possesses the card.

The super-ethical player, who just listens to the TD and does not have the WBFLC minutes for light reading by the toilet, will play the king here.

[gnasher]

The choice of "a" or "an" depends on how you pronounce the abbreviation, rather than on whether it looks like a normal word. For example, we say "an LED" because it's normally pronounced "ell-ee-dee", but "a LAN" because it's normally pronounced "lan".

Quote

When the suit of the MPC is led by either side, it seems he IS allowed to know his partner possesses the card.

I don't think the WBFLC was trying to distinguish between the case when the suit is led and the case when it isn't. I think what they meant was:
- You're allowed to know that he's going to have to play the card. For example, you're allowed to know not to discard your king of a suit where partner will have to discard the ace.
- You're not allowed to make wider inferences from partner's possession of the card, such as "Partner has ♦A so declarer must have ♠A, or "Partner wanted to lead a trump so maybe he has strength in declarer's side-suit."

I agree that this law is a mess. I'm not Nigel, so I won't tell you again how to eliminate such messes.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-August-21, 05:11, said:

You're allowed to know that he's going to have to play the card.

This implies that you are allowed to know what the card is, and therefore can lead a diamond on the other hand on this theme. If you don't there is a danger partner will be forced to discard the ace of diamonds on something. I think that there are two issues here. What you are allowed to do, and what you are allowed to do without the TD deciding that information from the MPC damaged the NOS.

You are not allowed to infract deliberately. Therefore if you think that information from the MPC will damage the NOS if you do X, then you must not do it. And that includes leading low from KQJx when partner has the ace. Pretty much like using UI deliberately.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-August-21, 06:56, said:

This implies that you are allowed to know what the card is, and therefore can lead a diamond on the other hand on this theme. If you don't there is a danger partner will be forced to discard the ace of diamonds on something. I think that there are two issues here. What you are allowed to do, and what you are allowed to do without the TD deciding that information from the MPC damaged the NOS.

You are not allowed to infract deliberately. Therefore if you think that information from the MPC will damage the NOS if you do X, then you must not do it. And that includes leading low from KQJx when partner has the ace. Pretty much like using UI deliberately.

Which law prohibits taking an action, subsequent to an infraction, that might cause the infraction to have damaged the opponents? I'm pretty sure there is no such law.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-August-21, 07:45, said:

Which law prohibits taking an action, subsequent to an infraction, that might cause the infraction to have damaged the opponents? I'm pretty sure there is no such law.

If the fact that partner has the ace of diamonds (in the other thread) is UI, then leading a diamond is using UI (a breach of 73C for example), and therefore:

72B1 A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

If the fact that partner has the ace of diamonds is AI, then he should be allowed to lead a diamond, and there should be no penalty.

The Law is so poor, that I would reject SB's attempt to give West a PP (in the other thread). I think the fact that partner has the ace of diamonds is UI, as it is "other information" (that he has it) - other than the fact that he has to play it at the first opportunity. In effect, you are making the assumption that he has it from the information that he has to play it at the first opportunity. Logical, I know, but not permitted. If the fact that partner has the ace of diamonds is both UI and AI, then this time the Law is an ass.

A more sensible approach is to treat the LOOT as a premature play on the trick on which it eventually gets played (that Law does not say how premature it has to be). Harsh, I know, but it will lead to some nice double-dummy problems.

[gnasher]

Paul, when you said "if you think that information from the MPC will damage the NOS if you do X, then you must not do it.", you implied that there was a Law that prohibits X. Have you abandoned that idea?

[Edited to correct typo]

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-August-22, 02:21

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-August-21, 09:00, said:

Paul, when you said "if you think that information from the MPC will damage the NOS if you do X, then you must not do it.", you implied that there was a Law than prohibits X. Have you abandoned that idea?

I should have said "if you think that using information from the MPC will damage the NOS then you must not use it". In other words you should not use it and hope the TD does not adjust under 50E3. The majority seemed to agree that leading a diamond in the other thread was an infraction. 50E2 says the fact that partner has the ace of diamonds is unauthorised, whatever the "other information" in there might mean.

I suppose using unauthorised information that does not damage the NOS is also an infraction, but not a relevant one. And I think you mean "that prohibits X". If I used "than" then that was a typographical error.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-August-21, 16:39, said:

I should have said "if you think that using information from the MPC will damage the NOS then you must not use it". In other words you should not use it and hope the TD does not adjust under 50E3.

Which Law prohibits this?

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the use of information which is specified by the Laws to be authorised, but whose use might cause the TD to adjust under law 50E3.

Quote

The majority seemed to agree that leading a diamond in the other thread was an infraction.

That was because they believed it to be a misuse of UI. Unless I've misunderstood, you seem to believe that there are circumstances where the use of AI is an infraction.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-August-22, 02:21

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-August-22, 02:18, said:

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the use of information which is specified by the Laws to be authorised, but whose use might cause the TD to adjust under law 50E3.

No, I don't believe that. I don't agree that possession of the MPC is specified by the Laws to be authorized. It is my fault for not being clear enough. I did write, however:

"If the fact that partner has the ace of diamonds is AI, then he should be allowed to lead a diamond, and there should be no penalty."

Both the EBU TD Course, and the statements by the best TDs to players, interpret these two clauses:

"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)."

as meaning that the fact that partner has to play the MPC at the first opportunity is authorized, but the fact that he possesses the ace of diamonds is unauthorized.

I agree with that interpretation, and where the WBFLC states that someone can lead low from KQJx, when partner has the ace of the suit as a MPC, then it is at best misleading and at worst wrong, and they contradict themselves by saying: "However, they may not act as though they know partner has that card!" In this example, playing low on the diamond is "acting as though they know partner has that card", despite what the minute said.

So, I think that the fact that partner possesses a specific card which is an MPC is unauthorized. The player should carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI, certainly if he thinks that it will damage the NOS. If it obviously won't, then he is not taking any advantage, so there is no issue. So, the Law that prohibits using information from the MPC is 73C, or 16B, combined with 72B1.

I do not see where I wrote that using AI could be an infraction. I used "information from the MPC", which I think is unauthorized. I also indicated that if the possession of the ace of diamonds is AI to his partner (for example, if declarer had shown no key cards and you can account for the other four during the play), then a diamond lead would be permitted.

[gnasher]

Law 50E2 tells us that there is some information which is UI to the offender's partner. Laws 16 and 73C tell us what his obligations are. Law 16 tells us what to do if he fails to meet those obligations.

Law 50E1 tells us that there is some information which is AI to the offender's partner. Law 50E3 tells us (I think) what to do when someone gains, relative to the original equity, by the use of this AI.

When you said "if you think that using information from the MPC will damage the NOS then you must not use it", I assumed, since you didn't say "unauthorised information", you meant "all information". When you said that this was "Pretty much like using UI deliberately", I assumed that you meant it was something other than "using UI deliberately". When you said "you should not use it and hope the TD does not adjust under 50E3", I assumed that you were talking about the situation where a director would adjust under 50E3 rather than Law 16, ie where he adjusts because of damage from the AI.

Anyway, as I now understand it, all you meant was "It's illegal to use UI". If that's what you meant, I agree.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-August-22, 07:49

[mycroft]

I hate dealing with this one. "Sorry, this will be confusing, but:

- you are allowed to know that if you play a heart, partner will play the 7, but
- you are not allowed to know that he has that card, or wanted to play that card, and may not use either of that information to determine how to defend."

Perhaps, I should switch that around, so that I can end the (new) second part with:

- so if the authorized information leads you to lead a heart, you can play what you think right knowing partner's card will be the 7.

This one ranks right up there with "If you wish, you can accept the pass and open in second seat. If you choose not to, the auction will revert to the dealer, which is you, and you can open in first seat [and fourth-hand will pass at first opportunity]." I can *see* a situation where I would want to open in second seat (system issues mean I have a bid in 2nd that I don't have/isn't as clear in 1st) but it never happens.