Help
RSliwinski, on 2014-March-24, 14:14, said:
I think you should consider The Minutes of a meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Beijing
on Friday, 10th October, 2008.
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.
on Friday, 10th October, 2008.
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.
Bingo! This tells me that in my case (post #1) the ruling should be that initially, the lead by proper leader of a low club is legal (per the 1998 minute), but subsequently it is found that the OS gained from knowledge that the penalty card was the ♣J, and so the score should be adjusted per Law 50E3.
One could also say, I think, that while the fact that the ♣J is a MPC is authorized, the inference that leader can put his partner on lead by underleading his AKQ is not authorized (Law 50E2). Does anyone disagree? If so, why?