[dburn]

Scoring: IMP

---

You, West, open 1NT which is passed round to South who bids 4♥. All pass and you lead ♣J. Declarer wins with the ace and leads ♥Q.

This is awkward, because clearly he would do this from both QJ109765 and AQJ109765, so you must guess what to do.

Now suppose that East has ♥A as a major penalty card (he dropped it face up in the table in following to the first trick). You play low, of course, and the contract fails by a trick.

The opponents call the director. How should he rule?

[pclayton]

dburn, on Nov 28 2007, 09:45 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

You, West, open 1NT which is passed round to South who bids 4♥. All pass and you lead ♣J. Declarer wins with the ace and leads ♥Q.

This is awkward, because clearly he would do this from both QJ109765 and AQJ109765, so you must guess what to do.

Now suppose that East has ♥A as a major penalty card (he dropped it face up in the table in following to the first trick). You play low, of course, and the contract fails by a trick.

The opponents call the director. How should he rule?

I'm not the laws guru, but isn't the penalty card UI?

[skjaeran]

The knowledge that partner must play the ♥A is legal knowledge to you. But the fact that your partner holds this card is UI.

This means that if you need to put partner on lead to play up to a tenace in your hand or give you a ruff, the knowledge that you can reach partner with the trump ace is UI. You have to try to reach partner somewhere else if there a logical alternative to trying trumps.

However, if trumps is lead and you've got to follow suit, or if you're in a position where you "have" to lead a trump, it's legal knowledge for you that partner is going to play the trump ace to this trick.

So you are allowed to play low in this position.

At the same time I know that all over-ethical players (myself included) would play the king in situations like this unless it was patently obvious from the hand up to this point that partner must hold the ace.

Btw, the above is true for the 1997 laws. I haven't checked the 2007 version, but doubt there's any change.

[ArtK78]

I am not a laws guru, either (at least, not a bridge laws guru), but it seems to me that the director has the right to assign an adjusted score on any board where the remedies provided by the laws are insufficient to address the harm caused by an infraction. Here, the remedy prescribed by the laws for the dropping of the ♥A at trick one may not be sufficient under the circumstances.

[jonottawa]

Ruling could go either way here, but the guy who dropped the ♥A on the table has noone to blame but himself if the ruling goes against him.

It's an interesting question (skaeran's analysis really gets at the ♥ of it.)

[lamford]

Is it not clear for the TD to adjust the score under Law 72B1?:

Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity.

It would seem that the person who dropped the ace of hearts, presumably a singleton, could have known that this would damage the non-offending side by removing the guess from his partner. And it would not matter if whether East asked for 73 other previous infractions to be taken into consideration, the punishment should be the same, the score being adjusted to 4H =.

[Codo]

If it is still the main goal of a TD descission to restore equity, he should ask the peers of this guy how they had played it. If they say to 50 % we had play the king and 50 % we play the 8 then he just adjust the score 50 % for 620 and 50 % of -100 for a total of 260 for both sides.
(edited thks to MickyB)

(At least in Germany this is not legal, the TD is not allowed to give these scores, this must be done by the AC, but I think in other countries they can do so?)

If there are no peers (lets say Friday and Robinson against Tarzan and Jane without internet) then the TD (which TD??) should rule in favour for the non offending side for 4Heart bid and made.

I believe that I am ethical myself, but I would not dump the king. I would leave the descission to the TD. Just in the unlikely case that I am Robinson in the above game, I would play the king.

This post has been edited by Codo: 2007-November-29, 01:43

[MickyB]

50% of +620 and 50% of -100 is not the same as the score being 260 (not 520, as you said). You should IMP or MP both +620 and -100, and take 50% of each of the MP/IMP scores.

I believe that there is no law that prohibits you from playing small to this trick.

72B1 comes into play. Could partner have known that his infraction would help his side? I don't think so...what if his partner instead held Qx in trumps, or Jxx? Now he's saved declarer a guess, one he was probably going to get wrong.

So, I can't find any law that allows me to adjust...hence the title of the thread, perhaps?

[MFA]

lamford, on Nov 28 2007, 02:23 PM, said:

Is it not clear for the TD to adjust the score under Law 72B1?:

Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity.

It would seem that the person who dropped the ace of hearts, presumably a singleton, could have known that this would damage the non-offending side by removing the guess from his partner. And it would not matter if whether East asked for 73 other previous infractions to be taken into consideration, the punishment should be the same, the score being adjusted to 4H =.

No, not clear at all IMO.
Partner might just as easily have ♥Qx (or even ♥Jxx), where dropping the ♥A is not so great an idea...

[paulg]

This WBFLC minute appears to be relevant ....

EBU White Book (WBFLC minute)

Law 50 Disposition of a Penalty Card

50.1 Law 50 [Beneficial effect of a penalty card] [WBFLC]

Sometimes a penalty card seems to be good for the offending side: the Director should
then consider Law 72B1. Of course this does not mean that a Director should normally
adjust if the player happens to gain from a penalty card: there needs to be some
possibility of wrongful intent.

[WBFLC minutes 1998-08-24#4]

So, unless you believe the player has deliberately dropped the ♥A, the penalty for the infraction has been paid and there is no basis for further adjustment.

Paul

[Blofeld]

cardsharp, on Nov 29 2007, 04:34 AM, said:

So, unless you believe the player has deliberately dropped the ♥A, the penalty for the infraction has been paid and there is no basis for further adjustment.

Surely that's not quite right? If you believe the player might have deliberately dropped it, perhaps? Or if you believe that they could have known dropping it would advantage their side?

[mikeh]

I like Harald's reasoning. Let me add a wrinkle: remove one of dummy's trump.... does this change the scenario? We have assumed that partner has the stiff Ace, so that (absent the penalty card) playing the King on the 1st round crashes the honours, and we should not avoid that fate merely because of partner's penalty card. But what if partner held Ax? Without the penalty card, we can't go wrong: we duck and partner wins, we win and partner ducks. Are we to crash our honours out of a sense of honour now?

[jonottawa]

If Harald's reasoning is right, does that mean you as Declarer should forbid a Heart lead and have the ♥A put back in RHO's hand?

Then the fact that RHO has the ♥A is still UI to LHO and he no longer has the 'legal knowledge that partner must play the ♥A to this trick' fallback position. I don't think he can justify NOT playing the ♥K under this scenario.

And if Declarer misses this 'best line' does that give LHO more justification for ducking the ♥Q?

I hate these problems. From an equity standpoint I'd like to throw the board out and penalize the offending side 3 IMPs, but that's not a valid option.

[lamford]

jonottawa, on Nov 29 2007, 12:55 PM, said:

If Harald's reasoning is right, does that mean you as Declarer should forbid a Heart lead and have the ♥A put back in RHO's hand?

The problem is that South is on lead. I think he should duck the jack of clubs, if he is able to, and then forbid the heart lead. East picks up the ♥A, and West, say, continues a second club which South wins and plays the ♥Q. Now West has to play the ♥K, I think. Of course South might not have a club loser, so ducking the club might not be possible or might cost a trick.

I always had no idea where the line between these two is drawn:

The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent, and:

The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

Basically they seem to say that the director can restore equity in the first of these, but in the second they say he can't.

I don't think West can have Jxx of diamonds (South would only have a six-bagger) but he can easily have Qx, as others point out, so I have to give in on the "could have known" argument.

[ArtK78]

lamford, on Nov 29 2007, 03:17 PM, said:

The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

I believe that this prohibition prevents the director from reducing a penalty prescribed in the laws, such as the one or two trick penalty for a revoke. A director cannot reduce a penalty below the minimum penalty prescribed in the laws of bridge for a particular infraction.

That is not the case here. The director is free to assign an adjusted score to restore equity. He is also free to assign a procedural penalty against the offending pair if the director believes that is warranted.

[beatrix45]

The debate is framed by a faulty premise. West should never play the king of ♥. If you have trouble seeing why, I know a nice 10 cent (Canadian)* rubber game that wants your patronage.

* not so funny anymore, eh Yank!

[dburn]

beatrix45, on Nov 29 2007, 05:10 PM, said:

The debate is framed by a faulty premise.  West should never play the king of ♥.  If you have trouble seeing why, I know a nice 10 cent (Canadian)* rubber game that wants your patronage.

* not so funny anymore, eh Yank!

I don't know what 10 Canadian cents is in real money, but if in Canada declarer would not lead the queen of hearts from AQJ10xxxx in this position (remember that West has opened 1NT), I would very much like to play rubber bridge there sometime.

[Codo]

Declarer cannot have AQJTxxxx, you see the ace in partners hand, every Canadian can see this.

Besides this, we all agree that this is an exellent problem with no clear ruling. So why can´t we agree to give the score that seems to reach equity as good as possible? (Which is the mp value of -260?)

[dburn]

Codo, on Nov 30 2007, 02:46 AM, said:

Declarer cannot have AQJTxxxx, you see the ace in partners hand, every Canadian can see this.

Besides this, we all agree that this is an excellent problem with no clear ruling. So why can´t we agree to give the score that seems to reach equity as good as possible? (Which is the mp value of -260?)

No, it's not. You don't arrive at a split score either at matchpoints or at IMPs by saying "4♥ making is +620, 4♥ down one is -100, so we'll take the average and call the score +260".

Instead, at matchpoints you award the contestant half the matchpoints that +620 would have scored, plus half the matchpoints that -100 would have scored. At IMPs, you compare both +620 and -100 with the score achieved at the other table, and average the two comparisons.

Say the score at the other table was NS +170; then North-South at this table receive half of plus 10 IMPs for +620 and half of minus 7 IMPs for -100. This makes them plus 1.5 IMPs, which in some jurisdictions is rounded up to plus 2 IMPs, not the plus 3 IMPs they would have obtained for a score of +260.

[skjaeran]

dburn, on Nov 30 2007, 01:28 PM, said:

Codo, on Nov 30 2007, 02:46 AM, said:

Declarer cannot have AQJTxxxx, you see the ace in partners hand, every Canadian can see this.

Besides this, we all agree that this is an excellent problem with no clear ruling. So why can´t we agree to give the score that seems to reach equity as good as possible? (Which is the mp value of -260?)

No, it's not. You don't arrive at a split score either at matchpoints or at IMPs by saying "4♥ making is +620, 4♥ down one is -100, so we'll take the average and call the score +260".

Instead, at matchpoints you award the contestant half the matchpoints that +620 would have scored, plus half the matchpoints that -100 would have scored. At IMPs, you compare both +620 and -100 with the score achieved at the other table, and average the two comparisons.

Say the score at the other table was NS +170; then North-South at this table receive half of plus 10 IMPs for +620 and half of minus 7 IMPs for -100. This makes them plus 1.5 IMPs, which in some jurisdictions is rounded up to plus 2 IMPs, not the plus 3 IMPs they would have obtained for a score of +260.

Good David - there's too many out there that doesn't understand this.

It's even more interesting at MP. If all other tables score +170 Codo's approach will give NS a complete top for their +260, whereas the correct approach gives them half a bottom and half a top - which is average.