Fourth Best Leads [SB]

4 Pages
←
1
2
3
4
→

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

Fourth Best Leads [SB] Law 50D2(b) again

#21 blackshoe

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 17,686
Joined: 2006-April-17
Gender:Male
Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-July-15, 08:45

lamford, on 2015-July-15, 07:45, said:

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."

According to my dictionaries, the definition you partially quoted includes "typically in pain or anger". Seems to me that makes bellowing eligible for a DP, whether the regulation used that specific word or not.

--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean

#22 Vampyr

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 10,611
Joined: 2009-September-15
Gender:Female
Location:London

Posted 2015-July-15, 09:08

Paul, why are you derailing the discussion of your original topic? Does it not interest you anymore?

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein

#23 lamford

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,444
Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-July-15, 09:17

StevenG, on 2015-July-15, 08:08, said:

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

That is so. However, I suspect the only LA without the penalty card is the king (or queen) of clubs, so I think we adjust to 9 tricks for illegal use of UI, although we give EW their good result, because the TD did not correctly explain the Law, although I would be surprised if anyone did correctly explain it!

I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar

#24 lamford

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,444
Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-July-15, 09:18

blackshoe, on 2015-July-15, 08:45, said:

I am not sure what can be gained by giving a mythical character a DP; he will only be ruder next time.

I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar

#25 barmar

Group: Admin
Posts: 21,570
Joined: 2004-August-21
Gender:Male

Posted 2015-July-15, 09:20

pran, on 2015-July-15, 07:57, said:

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.

Can we really separate the choice of suit and card in this case? The only reason to choose a club lead is because you have a nice sequence to lead. Can we really treat these as independent decisions? This seems to be the crux of the problem with the way this Law is interpreted.

Sometimes they are independent -- there's only one unbid suit in the auction, and it suggests that this is the best lead, so then you have to decide which card to lead. But in most cases, the two decisions are tightly linked: you choose a particular suit because it has an attractive card to lead.

It strains logic that you can allow the choice of a club lead because of the sequence, and then allow him to NOT lead the card he would normally lead from the sequence.

#26 lamford

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,444
Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-July-15, 09:26

pran, on 2015-July-15, 07:57, said:

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

The problem is that we select LAs without knowledge of the UI, and then choose among them one that is not demonstrably suggested by the UI. Say the LAs are the king of clubs for count and the queen of clubs for attitude. We must select from among LAs one not demonstrably suggested by the UI that partner has the ace of clubs. We can then select either. What we cannot do is to select a non LA, the two of clubs, which is demonstrably suggested by the UI that partner has the ace of clubs.

An LA for a lead is a specific card, not a suit.

I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar

#27 blackshoe

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 17,686
Joined: 2006-April-17
Gender:Male
Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-July-15, 09:26

lamford, on 2015-July-15, 09:18, said:

I am not sure what can be gained by giving a mythical character a DP; he will only be ruder next time.

Then we shoot him.

#28 lamford

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,444
Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-July-15, 09:28

barmar, on 2015-July-15, 09:20, said:

I think you have summed up the problem perfectly. And it tallies with my thinking in the almost simultaneous post above. One selects the card to lead, without using the UI, and then cannot change that card based on the UI.

I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar

#29 barmar

Group: Admin
Posts: 21,570
Joined: 2004-August-21
Gender:Male

Posted 2015-July-15, 09:29

blackshoe, on 2015-July-15, 09:26, said:

Then we shoot him.

Ugh, then we'll have virtual blood and guts all over the Internet.

Or were you referring to Lamford?

#30 blackshoe

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 17,686
Joined: 2006-April-17
Gender:Male
Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-July-15, 09:31

lamford, on 2015-July-15, 09:26, said:

What we cannot do is to select a non LA, the two of clubs, which is demonstrably suggested by the UI that partner has the ace of clubs.

Yeah, that's how the law is interpreted. I've never liked that. The laws says, specifically, that one cannot choose from among logical alternatives. If the action chosen is not a logical alternative, then choosing it does not violate this law. And then we turn around and say that the very act of choosing the action makes it a logical alternative. A Vulcan would reject the whole mess.

#31 barmar

Group: Admin
Posts: 21,570
Joined: 2004-August-21
Gender:Male

Posted 2015-July-15, 09:41

blackshoe, on 2015-July-15, 09:31, said:

A Vulcan would reject the whole mess.

An android would shout "Norman, coordinate" and then shut down.

This interpretation is just a mess, and hypos like this one just emphasize the point.

#32 lamford

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,444
Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-July-15, 09:47

blackshoe, on 2015-July-15, 09:31, said:

I agree that one cannot get round Law 16 by choosing a non-LA and there is indeed some case law that the actual selection is always deemed an LA.

I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar

#33 Vampyr

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 10,611
Joined: 2009-September-15
Gender:Female
Location:London

Posted 2015-July-15, 11:31

lamford, on 2015-July-15, 09:47, said:

I agree that one cannot get round Law 16 by choosing a non-LA and there is indeed some case law that the actual selection is always deemed an LA.

Yes of course it is. There must have been some sort of logic involved when the call was made. The Law should make this clear, but it seems that it should be clear to anyone who is not a dimwit.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein

#34 pran

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,344
Joined: 2009-September-14
Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-July-15, 12:42

Has nobody grasped the important difference between:
- The knowledge that partner has the ♣A because it has been, but no longer is a penalty card is UI
- The knowledge that partner must play his penalty card ♣A to a Club lead is AI.

The fact that the ♣A is a penalty card at the time West is allowed (for whatever reason) to lead a Club makes the lead of the ♣2 perfectly legal regardless of whether or not this Choice would have been LA absent any irregularity. (But the choice to lead a Club could still be illegal, judged to be based on UI.)

If the ♣A at this time had been a withdrawn penalty card then the lead of the ♣2 would be illegal, based on UI.

#35 weejonnie

Group: Full Members
Posts: 801
Joined: 2012-April-11
Gender:Male
Location:North-east England
Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2015-July-15, 13:12

I actually hold a contrary view:

"Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorised information for all players."

Surely this means - that there is a card that must be played when next able to do so?

Other information derived from sight of a penalty card is unauthorised....

In effect therefore the penalty card should be a blank piece of card with just the suit shown on it.

NB: After rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any play or call advantageous to their side - even though they thereby appear to profit though their own infraction.

No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.

#36 lamford

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,444
Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-July-15, 14:02

weejonnie, on 2015-July-15, 13:12, said:

In effect therefore the penalty card should be a blank piece of card with just the suit shown on it.

Why should the suit be shown on it? That is also UI. Both the rank and the suit are "other information derived from the sight of the penalty card."

I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar

#37 barmar

Group: Admin
Posts: 21,570
Joined: 2004-August-21
Gender:Male

Posted 2015-July-15, 14:28

My interpretation of this Law is that when partner actually plays the card, the information that it was a forced play is AI. So you aren't forced to make incorrect inferences about it -- it's not a signal, he's not denying a better card, etc.

I think the regulators really messed up when they declared the interpretation that allows you to use some information about the penalty card's identity.

#38 blackshoe

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 17,686
Joined: 2006-April-17
Gender:Male
Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-July-15, 14:31

Vampyr, on 2015-July-15, 11:31, said:

There must have been some sort of logic involved when the call was made.

Your assumption is flawed.

#39 pran

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,344
Joined: 2009-September-14
Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-July-15, 16:17

weejonnie, on 2015-July-15, 13:12, said:

Are you aware of the WBFLC minute that explictly allows a player who's partner has a penalty card to use the knowledge that the penalty card must be played when possible when selecting which card (in the suit) the player himself may play?

For instance, if Declarer leads the ♠Queen and you hold the ♠King then a natural play will often be to play the King. And if you know (from UI) that your partner holds the Ace then this is no legal reason to not play the King. But if your partner has the ♠Ace as a penalty card then WBFLC has explicitly stated that you do not have to play your King!

#40 lamford

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,444
Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-July-16, 03:34

pran, on 2015-July-15, 16:17, said:

Assuming the White Book quotes the minute correctly (I do not have the original), you are missing an important corollary, Pran:

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.

If a player benefits from underleading the KQJ, as in this example, whether by accident or design, then the TD should award an adjusted score. Effectively one cannot gain from the underlead as opposed to the lead of the king. I think there is a separate breach of Law 16, but all roads lead to Rome.

The minute continues:
The player must convince the Director that he has not gained from the information that the player possesses the card.

In this example, West would not be able to so convince the Director. I do not think campboy is correct that the test is whether the player gained from the original infraction. It is whether he gained from the knowledge that his partner possesses the card that matters.

I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar

4 Pages
←
1
2
3
4
→

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

BBO Discussion Forums: Fourth Best Leads [SB] - BBO Discussion Forums

Fourth Best Leads [SB] Law 50D2(b) again

#21 blackshoe

#22 Vampyr

#23 lamford

#24 lamford

#25 barmar

#26 lamford

#27 blackshoe

#28 lamford

#29 barmar

#30 blackshoe

#31 barmar

#32 lamford

#33 Vampyr

#34 pran

#35 weejonnie

#36 lamford

#37 barmar

#38 blackshoe

#39 pran

#40 lamford

4 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users

Delete Post

Skin and Language

Execution Stats

BBO Discussion Forums: Fourth Best Leads [SB] - BBO Discussion Forums

Fourth Best Leads [SB] Law 50D2(b) again

4 User(s) are reading this topic 0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users

Delete Post

Skin and Language

Execution Stats

4 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users