[sanst]

 WellSpyder, on 2016-September-07, 01:53, said:

Hooray! Finally I have some idea what to do as either a player or a TD if this sort of situation arises. Thanks to Lamford for raising this thorny issue again, and to RMB and Pran for setting out the EBU L&E and WBFLC attempts to clarify the law. It may not be perfect, and one can argue about whether it is what the law actually says, but at least I know understand what they are saying and it seems workable in practice.

But this case is still a clear example of the "could have been aware" clause of Law 23.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2016-September-06, 15:09, said:

WBFLC made it quite clear that the knowledge of the requirement to play MPC at the first legal option is AI to the offender's partner. This also includes knowing the exact identity of the MPC.

Consequently a player who (for instance) has the King in a suit where his partner has the Ace as MPC cannot be ruled to play his King only to see it covered by the Ace even if it is quite possible that he would have played his King without the knowledge of his partner's Ace. WBC was very explicit on this particular question.

I don't have the exact minute, nor does any TD here in Pula, but I do not recall it being as specific as you state. Can you quote the section which allows the player to know the exact identity of the MPC when following suit, please Pran? And any minute that allows the player to use the UI that his partner has the card. As far as I am aware, the minute is just wrong and cannot co-exist with Law 16, unless one makes the MPC AI. In my view one can only play low here if there is no logical alternative.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2016-September-07, 04:23, said:

I don't have the exact minute, nor does any TD here in Pula, but I do not recall it being as specific as you state. Can you quote the section which allows the player to know the exact identity of the MPC when following suit, please Pran? And any minute that allows the player to use the UI that his partner has the card. As far as I am aware, the minute is just wrong and cannot co-exist with Law 16, unless one makes the MPC AI. In my view one can only play low here if there is no logical alternative.

No, I cannot bother to search for that minute although I remember it very well because it did indeed change my own understanding of Law 50.

As Law 50 is a specific law while Law 16 is a more general law it takes precedence whenever there could be any conflict.

And frankly, I am tired of all these arguments for using Law 23 as a last resort to "punish" irregularities which really do not justify such reactions.

My last comment to this thread.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2016-September-07, 09:26, said:

And frankly, I am tired of all these arguments for using Law 23 as a last resort to "punish" irregularities which really do not justify such reactions.

I've been tired of it for ages. SB has such a liberal interpretation of "could have been aware" and "could well damage" that any time an irregularity works in favor of the OS, he considers this possible and expects an adjustment. If this is really what the lawmakers intended, they would have just said so instead of couching it in terms of whether the player could have expected it -- this must have been meant to be a higher bar.

But that's SB's MO: if there's any vagueness in the wording of a law, he'll take advantage of it to interpret it in whatever way supports his case. He can easily flip flop depending on whether the law is being used for or against him.

[blackshoe]

People keep talking about "the minute(s)" without specifying which one(s) they're talking about. So, relying on work previously done by the EBU (thanks!) I opened the white book and found:

EBU White Book said:

Law 50 Disposition of a Penalty Card
8.50.1 Law 50: Beneficial effect of a penalty card [WBFLC]
If possession of a penalty card has a beneficial effect for the offending side, the Director may have recourse to [Law 23].
[WBFLC minutes 1998-08-24#4]
Sometimes a penalty card seems to be good for the offending side: the TD should then consider Law 23. Of course this does not mean that the TD should normally adjust if the player happens to gain from a penalty card: there needs to be some possibility of wrongful intent.
8.50.2 Law 50E: Knowledge of major penalty card [WBFLC]
A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this card and information that the player has the card. Initially the underlead from KQJx to partner’s Ax is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3 applies.
The player must convince the Director that he has not gained from the information that the player possesses the card.
[WBFLC minutes 2008-10-10#3]

The full text of the referenced minutes follows:

WBFLC minutes said:

WBFLC minutes 2008-10-10#3]
Law 50E ‐ Mr. Di Sacco asks that examples be provided of the application of this law. A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this card and information that the player has the card. Initially the underlead from K Q J x to partner’s A x is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3 applies.
Mr.Bavin observes that the player must convince the Director that he has not gained from the information that the player possesses the card. This continues the WBF Laws Committee decision made in previous years.

WBFLC minutes 1998-08-24#4
If possession of a penalty card has a beneficial effect for the offending side, the Director may have recourse to Law 72B1.

Proceed.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2016-September-07, 14:36, said:

But that's SB's MO: if there's any vagueness in the wording of a law, he'll take advantage of it to interpret it in whatever way supports his case. He can easily flip flop depending on whether the law is being used for or against him.

Indeed. However, as the quote above of the relevant minute establishes "there has to be some possibility of wrongful intent". We do not assume that such a possibility always exists. Indeed we assume, prima facie, that it does not exist.

[Cyberyeti]

 lamford, on 2016-September-06, 11:37, said:

Utter drivel, which you keep repeating, ad nauseam. West is RR who cannot even follow suit, let alone give correct count. Declarer is around 44% to have four spades 35.1/(44.34+35.1), given that SB always opens a four-card major in preference to a four-card minor, and given that RR just always follows with his lowest card, when he manages to play the correct suit. We ignore the times he has six spades when it does not matter. Also when declarer has four spades, the only chance is to cover; when he has five, it is only wrong to cover when partner has stiff ace, and wrong when he has stiff jack. In fact, NOT covering is a serious error.

If you're going to contrive that west is a complete idiot, don't then say he could have known ... he obviously couldn't

Any beginner can play a simple count signal here and you're simply contriving to resurrect a dud problem, give E ♥Qxx and the problem is much more intesting.

That said what does E actually legally know ?

He knows declarer has led the Q from dummy.

Absent any shenanigans, he knows declarer won't do this with Axxxx as it's ZP with correct defence, and there is a decent legitimate chance (stiff k). What changes this legally ?

[VixTD]

 lamford, on 2016-September-07, 04:23, said:

As far as I am aware, the minute is just wrong and cannot co-exist with Law 16, unless one makes the MPC AI. In my view one can only play low here if there is no logical alternative.

Your reading of the law would be the same if law 50E1 did not exist, and yet it does exist, and it's presumably there to serve some purpose. If East can only play low if there's no logical alternative, doesn't that render law 50E3 redundant as well? On what basis would the director adjust the score if offender's partner had taken the only logical course of action available to him, i.e. if he had taken no advantage from the unauthorized information?

I don't entirely agree with Pran, but I think he's on the right lines. East has to avoid taking advantage of the unauthorized information available to him from the penalty card, but he is allowed to know and act on the information that whatever he plays to this trick (♠Q lead), the card his partner is going to play to it will be ♠A. That much information is authorized, and so East's only logical course of action is to play low on this trick. He won't be allowed to gain by doing so, but he hasn't used any information that the law says is unauthorized, so he may well end up with a better score than he would under your interpretation.

I agree that the law is poorly conceived and formulated, but I actually think that we're reaching a workable interpretation of it, so I'm still finding this discussion useful and interesting. I may be the only one left now.

[barmar]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-07, 16:16, said:

If you're going to contrive that west is a complete idiot, don't then say he could have known ... he obviously couldn't

Another of SB's regular tactics. Everyone knows that RR is incompetent, but the level of his incompetence rises and falls to server SB's argument.

[RMB1]

From WBF LC minutes

There are two WBFLC minutes re Law 50E, the first is from 1998-1-Lille item 3, which predates the current Law 50E.

Quote

3. Information arising from possession of a penalty card
The Committee considered the question of information arising from possession of a penalty card. Information that the player must play the penalty card as the law requires is authorised and partner may choose the card to lead from the suit on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may lead small from K Q J x when partner’s penalty card is the Ace). Information based on sight of partner’s penalty card is unauthorised so that, for example, the player may not choose to lead the suit if the suit is suggested by the penalty card and play of a different suit is a logical alternative.

The second is from 2008-Beijing item 3.

Quote

3. A Report from the October 8th meeting of the Drafting Subcommittee was considered. The Committee confirmed its interpretations and decisions as follows:
That Mr Kooijman be encouraged to complete his work on a commentary or appendix and then publish it, either after ratification by the WBF (possibly obtained via the internet) or, if he wished, as a personal commentary on the laws.
...
Law 50E ‐ Mr. Di Sacco asks that examples be provided of the application of this law. A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this card and information that the player has the card. Initially the underlead from K Q J x to partner’s A x is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3 applies.
Mr.Bavin observes that the player must convince the Director that he has not gained from the information that the player possesses the card. This continues the WBF Laws Committee decision made in previous years.
...

The final sentence is the killer: it appears to imply that the interpretation in the 1998 minute still applies despite the change in the law.

[Cyberyeti]

If I was E, I would defend my actions as follows, shoot this down:

Absent the UI nobody covers the Q♠ here: Why ? well there are 4 cases that matter, partner has Jx, J, A or void

A I need to duck
J I need to cover, but declarer wouldn't lead the Q
void I need to duck
Jx means declarer has driven to slam opposite a limit raise with one key on a flat 19 with ♠Axxx, SB may be many things, a maniac is not one of them.

SB also didn't check for the Q♠ while not holding it, so is pretty likely to hold 6, and well nigh certain not to hold Axxx.

Thus I shouldn't be forced to cover.

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-08, 10:43, said:

If I was E, I would defend my actions as follows, shoot this down:

Absent the UI nobody covers the Q♠ here: Why ? well there are 4 cases that matter, partner has Jx, J, A or void

A I need to duck
J I need to cover, but declarer wouldn't lead the Q
void I need to duck
Jx means declarer has driven to slam opposite a limit raise with one key on a flat 19 with ♠Axxx, SB may be many things, a maniac is not one of them.

SB also didn't check for the Q♠ while not holding it, so is pretty likely to hold 6, and well nigh certain not to hold Axxx.

Thus I shouldn't be forced to cover.

With RR having singleton ace, you do need to duck. With singleton jack, SB might well play this way, as the MPC may well be the jack of spades. It is AI to SB but UI to you that it is not the jack of spades. He would conclude that it is twice as likely that you have the ten of spades as RR. He would also conclude that RR does not have a singleton king of spades, so the layout J opposite KT is twice as likely as JT opposite K and given that YOU are not covering from KT, it is clear to play as he did.

There are four times as many Jx holdings for partner as singleton ace. If declarer had Axxx KJ Axxx AKx or Axxx KJ Axx AKxx then he would be, approximately, 70% opposite a limit raise with one ace, according to a simulation (setting North as 10-11 with four trumps). With a fifth spade, he would be even higher. Don't forget that the COC stipulated limit (not mixed or Molly) raises and simple Blackwood. Not RKCB and asking for the queen of trumps, both of which were expressly forbidden. The hand you are playing declarer for, Jxxxx AK Axx AKx, is far less likely. Any count signals from RR would be completely useless. He had been told never to give count by all partners as he does so when it can only help declarer. So we fall back on the requirement to carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI. If you were East, as you are fully aware of all the legal and ethical requirements and strong enough to know you should cover, I would impose a double PP on you for blatant use of UI and trying to justify it (both to yourself and the TD), in addition to giving SB 100% of 6S=. It only needs to be an LA to cover, and I submit it is actually correct play.

As Robin says, the silver bullet is that you must convince the TD that you have not profited from the sight of the MPC. This you have singularly failed to do. And your UI requirements are as strong as ever. Even stronger maybe.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2016-September-08, 08:12, said:

Another of SB's regular tactics. Everyone knows that RR is incompetent, but the level of his incompetence rises and falls to server SB's argument.

There is nothing in the "could have been aware" of Law 23 which takes into account the class of player. The only test is whether ANY player could have been aware that his infraction would damage the non-offenders.

[lamford]

 VixTD, on 2016-September-08, 08:00, said:

Your reading of the law would be the same if law 50E1 did not exist, and yet it does exist, and it's presumably there to serve some purpose. If East can only play low if there's no logical alternative, doesn't that render law 50E3 redundant as well? On what basis would the director adjust the score if offender's partner had taken the only logical course of action available to him, i.e. if he had taken no advantage from the unauthorized information?

I think Law 50E allows the TD to adjust if the person uses the UI, but, if the person carefully avoids taking any advantage of it, then the MPC would NOT convey such information as to damage the non-offending sid, in the sense that the person acts as though he has not seen it. You could say that it is redundant, but Law 16B and Law 73C duplicate each other as well.

[Cyberyeti]

 lamford, on 2016-September-09, 04:43, said:

If declarer had Axxx KJ Axxx AKx or Axxx KJ Axx AKxx then he would be, approximately, 70% opposite a limit raise with one ace, according to a simulation (setting North as 10-11 with four trumps).

I don't believe your sim.

I think you're significantly upwards of 20% and maybe close to 30% to have 2 trump losers let alone other issues (10% partner has none of KQJ where you're just off, c.14% he only has the J where you're off a very large percentage of the time, c.14% chance of just the Q where you're off a decent proportion of the time if they're 3-2, let alone other situations where they don't break). Also in a sim you take the heart finesse whenever it's right, and take it the right way when partner has the 10, ditto spade holdings like KJ9x.

The deadest of the dead however is opposite KQJx, Ax, some 4-3 where you can't make 5.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2016-September-09, 05:38, said:

There is nothing in the "could have been aware" of Law 23 which takes into account the class of player. The only test is whether ANY player could have been aware that his infraction would damage the non-offenders.

Are you interpreting it this way because the law says "an offender" rather than "the offender", so it's not specific to the particular player? It's possible that the lawmakers intended this nuance, it could also just be that they didn't word it as carefully as they could have. In this context, "an" could be meant to be specific or non-specific.

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-09, 06:11, said:

I don't believe your sim.

I think you're significantly upwards of 20% and maybe close to 30% to have 2 trump losers let alone other issues (10% partner has none of KQJ where you're just off, c.14% he only has the J where you're off a very large percentage of the time, c.14% chance of just the Q where you're off a decent proportion of the time if they're 3-2, let alone other situations where they don't break). Also in a sim you take the heart finesse whenever it's right, and take it the right way when partner has the 10, ditto spade holdings like KJ9x.

The deadest of the dead however is opposite KQJx, Ax, some 4-3 where you can't make 5.

The problem is that Deep Finesse (used in the SIM) plays Axxx opposite Qxxx perfectly by ducking the second round when it is right to do so. Mind you I would do the same against the Rabbit who will play the king when he has it. And the only relevant issue is how often SB would move on Jxxxx AK Axxx AK and how often (relatively) he would move on Axxx KJ Axx(x) AKx. He is an arrogant ***** and will regard his declarer play as so good that he will always move. I think he has overbid a little in both scenarios, but given that he is opposite Molly I cannot blame him. You are bucking tremendous odds, however, by ducking instead of covering, hoping partner has the miracle stiff ace that you have seen. I would cover always. It only has to be an LA.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2016-September-09, 08:59, said:

Are you interpreting it this way because the law says "an offender" rather than "the offender

Yes. The Laws are so watertight that they would never use the wrong article.

[lamford]

 Trinidad, on 2016-September-06, 05:12, said:

For me, not covering is not an LA, so there are no consequences.

FYP. Apart from that the rest was correct.