[billw55]

pran, on 2015-May-14, 13:26, said:

NO

Well ok. In that case, I still don't understand exactly what is UI and what is AI in this situation.

[ArtK78]

"North was both allowed and not allowed to know that South possessed them, but they were AI to the declarer. SB, who knew Law 50E in full, queried this, and the TD explained that possession of the penalty cards was UI to North, but SB was allowed to know that both cards had to be played at the first opportunity, either in following or discarding."

In other words, the fact that South held the 10 of diamonds and the 10 of hearts is UI to North, but the fact that South has two penalty cards and must play those cards at his first legal opportunity to do so is AI to North.

Assuming that this is correct, then I still find North blameless and I will not adjust the score. This is not a logical alternative situation. The fact that South has two penalty cards and must play them at his first legal opportunity is AI to North, so he can deal with that fact. What he may not do is anything relating to the fact that South possesses the two red 10s. Playing the red suit aces is an effective way of disposing of the penalty cards, and, since the fact that those cards have to be played at South's first legal opportunity is AI to North, he can play the red suit aces without any penalty.

It would be illogical for North to play a club at trick 2 when he knows that South will be required to play one of the penalty cards on that trick. And that is AI to North.

Unless you are disputing the original TD's ruling that the existence of the penalty cards is AI to North, then this is a non-problem.

If the argument is that North is entitled to know that South has two penalty cards, but is not entitled to know what they are, I think you are taking the argument to an absurd level. But, to play along, suppose the card dropped at trick one after the opening lead was the ♠Q, which now becomes a penalty card. And suppose, for some reason, that declarer does not require a spade lead at trick 2. Is there some reason why North would not be entitled to play a club at trick 2? Or, if North is allowed to play his red suit aces at trick 2 and trick 3 (to which South follows), is there some reason to prohibit North from playing a club thereafter?

Assuming that North is not entitled to know what the penalty card(s) is/are, is the fact that declarer is given the option to require or bar the lead of a heart or a diamond AI to North? If so, he can deduce the identity of the suit(s) of the penalty card(s).

Let's assume that the fact that declarer has chosen not to bar the lead of a red suit by North is UI to North. Then it does not cost North anything to play one of his red suit aces at trick 2 in the hope that one of the penalty cards will have to be played on that trick, and, at trick 3, it does not cost North anything to play his other red ace in the hope that the other penalty card will have to be played on that trick. If the play of both aces does dispose of the penalty cards, then North is free to lead whatever he chooses at trick 4, and South is free to play whatever he chooses at trick 4.

[pran]

billw55, on 2015-May-14, 14:06, said:

Well ok. In that case, I still don't understand exactly what is UI and what is AI in this situation.

To repeat myself:
to the partner of a player having a penalty card the information that the player has this penalty card (including it's denomination and rank) and the fact that the player must play it at the first legal opportunity (if it is MPC) is authorized.

Any other information derived from sight of a penalty card (for instance the fact that the player wished to play the card) is unauthorized to partner at all times.

The information about the denomination and rank of the penalty card becomes unauthorized to partner if and when the card ceases to be a penalty card (for instance as the result of lead or play restrictions imposed by Declarer) since the card is then no longer exposed.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2015-May-14, 13:21, said:

(my enhancement)

which explicitly implies that two or more cards played simultaneously to the same trick (by the same player) are always considered exposed unintentionally. Thus Law 58B must always first be applicable in such situations. After the player has selected which card he wishes to play Law 50 B is the applicable Law for ruling major or minor penalty card(s).

No. One card can be led and another dropped. It will normally be obvious to everyone present that this is what happened.

[lamford]

ArtK78, on 2015-May-14, 14:11, said:

It would be illogical for North to play a club at trick 2 when he knows that South will be required to play one of the penalty cards on that trick. And that is AI to North.

North must first select his lead at trick two without knowledge of the fact that South has both red tens. He selects the lead without being aware what the penalty cards are. On that basis, a club is a logical alternative. Even if you accept the WBFLC minute as a correct interpretation of the Law, North is still not allowed to select which suit to lead using the information that South has both red tens. A club is a logical alternative and is less successful, therefore must be selected.

[lamford]

billw55, on 2015-May-14, 12:00, said:

OK so .. the existence of penalty cards is UI to the offending side, until such cards are played, at which time the fact that they were penalty cards becomes AI. Is this essentially correct?

That is essentially correct, as that is what the Law says, although the drivel from the WBFLC contradicts this.

[lamford]

ArtK78, on 2015-May-14, 14:11, said:

But, to play along, suppose the card dropped at trick one after the opening lead was the ♠Q, which now becomes a penalty card. And suppose, for some reason, that declarer does not require a spade lead at trick 2. Is there some reason why North would not be entitled to play a club at trick 2?

North must just select from logical alternatives one not demonstrably suggested by the sight of the queen of the spades and he must carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI. In your example, a club might well be the only logical alternative, and could then be selected.

[lamford]

pran, on 2015-May-14, 14:52, said:

To repeat myself:
to the partner of a player having a penalty card the information that the player has this penalty card (including it's denomination and rank) and the fact that the player must play it at the first legal opportunity (if it is MPC) is authorized.

No. The information that the player has this penalty card is unauthorised; only the requirement to play it is authorised.

(WBFLC minutes 1998-08-24~3)
Example: However, they may not act as though they know partner has that card. If a king was led out of turn and it is now a penalty card, then partner must act as if they do not know about the King nor about the Queen, a normal deduction when partner leads a King. They may not choose to lead the suit if the suit is suggested by the King and a different suit is a logical alternative.

[nige1]

Another example of the unnecessary problems that law-makers create by providing players with options after infractions. Some directors and many offenders simply lack the agile imagination to cope with perverse UI ramifications. Such laws grant the secretary-bird (as offender or victim) a significant advantage over the ordinary player.

[ArtK78]

lamford, on 2015-May-14, 17:51, said:

North must first select his lead at trick two without knowledge of the fact that South has both red tens. He selects the lead without being aware what the penalty cards are. On that basis, a club is a logical alternative. Even if you accept the WBFLC minute as a correct interpretation of the Law, North is still not allowed to select which suit to lead using the information that South has both red tens. A club is a logical alternative and is less successful, therefore must be selected.

No.

North has authorized information that partner has a penalty card. Therefore, leading a club is NOT a logical alternative. If the penalty card is either a heart or a diamond, partner will have to play it on the club lead. And if the penalty card is a spade, it would make a club a logical alternative ONLY IF the spade were the Q. Furthermore, since declarer did not require a spade lead, it stands to reason that the penalty card is not a spade, so leading a club is demonstrably NOT a logical alternative. Note that the analysis about the penalty card not being a spade is based on authorized information. North knows the rules, and he knows that declarer could have required North to lead a spade if the penalty card were a spade. Given that North has not been required to lead a spade, he can deduce that the penalty card is not a spade.

This analysis has nothing to do with the UI - knowledge that South has both red tens. It has to do only with the AI - that South has a penalty card.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2015-May-14, 19:49, said:

Another example of the unnecessary problems that law-makers create by providing players with options after infractions. Some directors and many offenders simply lack the agile imagination to cope with perverse UI ramifications. Such laws grant the secretary-bird (as offender or victim) a significant advantage over the ordinary player.

OK, what would you prefer to do when there is a major penalty card?

[lamford]

ArtK78, on 2015-May-14, 20:26, said:

North has authorized information that partner has a penalty card.

Indeed. But the fact that it is the ten of hearts is unauthorised. Cashing the ace of hearts is using the information that partner's penalty card is the ten of hearts. Let us consider two different scenarios.

a) Partner led the ten of clubs and dropped only the ten of hearts
b) Partner led the ten of clubs and dropped only the ten of diamonds

In a) you need to cash the ace of hearts (and can also cash the ace of diamonds) before playing the trump promotion
In b) you need to cash the ace of diamonds (and can also cash the ace of hearts) before giving him the trump promotion

Both actions use the UI of knowing partner's penalty card to do better than you might do if you did not know what it was. The 1998 minute is clear, and the later minute does not override it. It states: "However, they may not act as though they know partner has that card." Cashing either red ace is acting as though you know partner has a penalty card in the suit in which you cash the ace. No interpretation can affect what does not need interpreting when it contradicts it.

And note that 50E says:
"Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players."

That indicates that all players are allowed to know that a penalty card must be played at the first opportunity. If the intention had been that all players were allowed to know that the ten of hearts had to played at the first opportunity, then this should have said:

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

[ArtK78]

ArtK78, on 2015-May-14, 20:26, said:

No.

North has authorized information that partner has a penalty card.

lamford, on 2015-May-15, 02:27, said:

Indeed. But the fact that it is the ten of hearts is unauthorised. Cashing the ace of hearts is using the information that partner's penalty card is the ten of hearts.

No.

North knows that South has a penalty card. Suppose North cannot see what it is. Why can't North play his two red aces in the hope that South's penalty card is in one of the red suits? North is not using the UI that the penalty card is a particular card - the ♥10 or the ♦10. He is using the authorized information that South has a penalty card. By playing the two red aces, North hopes to extract the penalty card from South's hand and then play a club. North is not using the UI of the actual identity of the penalty card. He is using the AI that there is a penalty card.

[lamford]

ArtK78, on 2015-May-15, 05:19, said:

North knows that South has a penalty card. Suppose North cannot see what it is. Why can't North play his two red aces in the hope that South's penalty card is in one of the red suits? North is not using the UI that the penalty card is a particular card - the ♥10 or the ♦10. He is using the authorized information that South has a penalty card. By playing the two red aces, North hopes to extract the penalty card from South's hand and then play a club. North is not using the UI of the actual identity of the penalty card. He is using the AI that there is a penalty card.

Say that the layout is East ♠KQxx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣Kxxx and South's penalty card is a small trump. Now cashing the ace of hearts is fatal, as declarer's second heart loser disappears. However, we know that is not the case as we can see the ten of hearts, which does not look remotely like a small trump. For one to impose a club lead on North, all that we have to find is that playing a club is a logical alternative for peers of North who are not cheats and have poor eyesight so that they cannot see the penalty card and poor hearing in that they heard the TD indicate that some card or other was a penalty card, but they did not quite catch which one it was.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-May-14, 17:51, said:

North must first select his lead at trick two without knowledge of the fact that South has both red tens. He selects the lead without being aware what the penalty cards are. On that basis, a club is a logical alternative. Even if you accept the WBFLC minute as a correct interpretation of the Law, North is still not allowed to select which suit to lead using the information that South has both red tens. A club is a logical alternative and is less successful, therefore must be selected.

1. It is within the responsibility and authority of the WBFLC to interpret the law. They have done so. You may disagree. Many people may disagree. But the LC has spoken, and a TD who willfully ignores that is, IMO, wrong.
2. The law does not say that a logical alternative which is less successful than other LAs must be selected. It says that the other LAs may not be selected if they could demonstrably have been suggested by unauthorized information.
3. "On that basis a club is a logical alternative". So you claim. Can you explain this logic, please?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-15, 06:58, said:

1. It is within the responsibility and authority of the WBFLC to interpret the law. They have done so. You may disagree. Many people may disagree. But the LC has spoken, and a TD who willfully ignores that is, IMO, wrong.

They also interpreted the Law in 1998 that the partner of the person with the penalty card is not allowed to act as though he knows his partner possesses that card. I am not advocating the TD ignoring the minute, as, fortunately, he can cock a snook at the WBFLC's folly by applying 50E3 in this and all similar cases:

"If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall award an adjusted score." That is how I am likely to judge in this and similar situations. There is no requirement in the Laws for his judgement to accord with the wrong minute of the WBFLC. And I adjust for the damage caused by "using the information" not for the damage caused by the original infraction which created the penalty card.

blackshoe, on 2015-May-15, 06:58, said:

2. The law does not say that a logical alternative which is less successful than other LAs must be selected. It says that the other LAs may not be selected if they could demonstrably have been suggested by unauthorized information.

I agree that my précis was inadequate, but in this case, cashing the ace of hearts is demonstrably suggested by the unauthorised information, and must not be selected under Law 73C.

blackshoe, on 2015-May-15, 06:58, said:

3. "On that basis a club is a logical alternative". So you claim. Can you explain this logic, please?

If partner did not have a penalty card, you would play a club every day of the week. Cashing either red ace would be wrong whenever declarer has the hand I gave ArtK78, something like ♠KQxx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣Kxxx or ♠KQxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣Kxxx. It would be an LA for a peer of North who is told that his partner has an unspecified penalty card.

[mycroft]

I usually describe this (with an apology that it's not going to make any sense) as:

"The fact that he has this card, or he wanted to play this card [not applicable here, of course], and any information you can derive from those facts, is unauthorized to you¹, and you may not make a play suggested by those facts if there's a Logical Alternative². However, you *are* entitled to know that the penalty card will be played at the first legal opporutunity³ (and, here, if partner has a choice, declarer decides which card is played)⁴."

I freely admit I had a braino on my last comment - I just didn't see the problem. I must have been asleep (it was 1000, all decent directors are still asleep). However, it is an interesting issue. Yes, I do think that the fact that partner has a stiff club is AI, and the fact that if I lead a club, partner will play a penalty card is also AI; and that allowing partner the choice to do something by eating the PCs first is potentially a good option. Whether it *should be* legal is a question, but I think it *is*.

¹ Law 50E2
² Law 16B1
³ Law 50E1
⁴ Law 51A

[pran]

mycroft, on 2015-May-15, 10:15, said:

I usually describe this (with an apology that it's not going to make any sense) as:

"The fact that he has this card, or he wanted to play this card [not applicable here, of course], and any information you can derive from those facts, is unauthorized to you¹, and you may not make a play suggested by those facts if there's a Logical Alternative². However, you *are* entitled to know that the penalty card will be played at the first legal opporutunity³ (and, here, if partner has a choice, declarer decides which card is played)⁴."

I freely admit I had a braino on my last comment - I just didn't see the problem. I must have been asleep (it was 1000, all decent directors are still asleep). However, it is an interesting issue. Yes, I do think that the fact that partner has a stiff club is AI, and the fact that if I lead a club, partner will play a penalty card is also AI; and that allowing partner the choice to do something by eating the PCs first is potentially a good option. Whether it *should be* legal is a question, but I think it *is*.

¹ Law 50E2
² Law 16B1
³ Law 50E1
⁴ Law 51A

How does North "know" for a fact that the ♣10 led by South was a singleton?

I agree that North is allowed to plan his play based on that assumption (which can hardly be derived from the penalty cards) and the hope that South has a trump high enough to execute an uppercut. That obviously leads to a permissible line of play cashing the two red Aces and play of a second club.

[ArtK78]

lamford, on 2015-May-15, 05:35, said:

Say that the layout is East ♠KQxx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣Kxxx and South's penalty card is a small trump. Now cashing the ace of hearts is fatal, as declarer's second heart loser disappears. However, we know that is not the case as we can see the ten of hearts, which does not look remotely like a small trump. For one to impose a club lead on North, all that we have to find is that playing a club is a logical alternative for peers of North who are not cheats and have poor eyesight so that they cannot see the penalty card and poor hearing in that they heard the TD indicate that some card or other was a penalty card, but they did not quite catch which one it was.

So now your argument is that the layout of the cards is different, and that the play of the ♥A is fatal to the defense. Before your argument was that playing the two red aces was not permissible because a club return was a logical alternative.

Apparently, you are creating a problem with a moving target.

[lamford]

ArtK78, on 2015-May-15, 11:03, said:

So now your argument is that the layout of the cards is different, and that the play of the ♥A is fatal to the defense. Before your argument was that playing the two red aces was not permissible because a club return was a logical alternative.

Apparently, you are creating a problem with a moving target.

North can only see the dummy, and does not know what declarer's hand is, nor should he know the rank or suit of the penalty card(s), so the layout of the unseen cards is always a moving target. North must select from logical alternatives using the authorised information only. He knows that his partner has a penalty card (or two, it matters not), but not what it is. If that penalty card is a small trump, then no player would cash a red ace - there is no point - and it will often lose. Therefore a club is a logical alternative and cashing a red ace is demonstrably suggested by the UI.

Apparently, you are obfuscating because you have lost the argument. You weren't Harry Redknapp's tax attorney by any chance?