[lamford]

---

Multiple Teams. Opening lead A♠. Table result 5♥-1.

This board was played at the North London Club's visit to a new venue at Folkestone for its weekend event, and occurred just after after dinner. ChCh, East, had eaten a particularly sticky Pavlova after the meal. RR, West, led the ace of spades and East, ChCh played the 2. While RR was thinking about whether to continue spades or switch, WW, North and dummy, blurted out "you have two cards stuck together there, ChCh."

"Mea culpa," replied ChCh, "I did not have time to wash my hands after that excellent meal." Underneath the two of spades was the three of spades, and the TD was called.

Stuart the Stoat, the local TD, arrived. "Right, the th-th-th-ree of spades is a m-m-m-ajor penalty card I am afraid," he stuttered. "No it is not, you moron", replied SB, South. "It is a m-m-m-inor penalty card under Law 50B," he mimicked, and it is authorised to all the players at the table while it remains face up, under Law 50E1. I don't think you are assisting so you can go back to your cubby hole."

RR, after a second recount, managed to work out that South was ruffing spades. He also thought his partner's two of spades was suit preference for clubs and switched to the jack of clubs with deadly effect.

SB was furious. "ChCh could have been aware that eating Pavlova could have caused two cards to become stuck together and he could have been aware that this could well damage the non-offending side. More seriously, he could well have deliberately played two cards to one trick", he began.

"Nonsense", replied ChCh, "Eating Pavlova is not an infraction and South would not have bid 5♥ with two spade losers, and the choice of which minor to switch to was a complete guess", he responded. "Rub of the green", I think.

How do you rule?

[pran]

 lamford, on 2019-March-25, 06:30, said:

---

Multiple Teams. Opening lead A♠. Table result 5♥-1.

This board was played at the North London Club's visit to a new venue at Folkestone for its weekend event, and occurred just after after dinner. ChCh, East, had eaten a particularly sticky Pavlova after the meal. RR, West, led the ace of spades and East, ChCh played the 2. While RR was thinking about whether to continue spades or switch, WW, North and dummy, blurted out "you have two cards stuck together there, ChCh."

"Mea culpa," replied ChCh, "I did not have time to wash my hands after that excellent meal." Underneath the two of spades was the three of spades, and the TD was called.

Stuart the Stoat, the local TD, arrived. "Right, the th-th-th-ree of spades is a m-m-m-ajor penalty card I am afraid," he stuttered. "No it is not, you moron", replied SB, South. "It is a m-m-m-inor penalty card under Law 50B," he mimicked, and it is authorised to all the players at the table while it remains face up, under Law 50E1. I don't think you are assisting so you can go back to your cubby hole."

RR, after a second recount, managed to work out that South was ruffing spades. He also thought his partner's two of spades was suit preference for clubs and switched to the jack of clubs with deadly effect.

SB was furious. "ChCh could have been aware that eating Pavlova could have caused two cards to become stuck together and he could have been aware that this could well damage the non-offending side. More seriously, he could well have deliberately played two cards to one trick", he began.

"Nonsense", replied ChCh, "Eating Pavlova is not an infraction and South would not have bid 5♥ with two spade losers, and the choice of which minor to switch to was a complete guess", he responded. "Rub of the green", I think.

How do you rule?

Was the ♠3 initially visible under the ♠2?

If not then it should simply be restored to East's hand without being exposed and there is no rectification. (Law 58 B 1)

If it was indeed visible then East decides which of the ♠2 and ♠3 is played (Law 58 B 2) and the other becomes a minor penalty card (Law 50 B)
End of story except that the behaviour of SB (as usual) is absolutely unacceptable.

[Tramticket]

Law 50 E 4 would seem to apply. The outcome of the play with RR on lead may well have been different without the penalty card and as such, North / South have been damaged.

It is difficult to gauge the probable outcome without the penalty card, with RR on lead. I adjust - probably with a weighted average result.

[Tramticket]

 pran, on 2019-March-25, 08:00, said:

Was the ♠3 initially visible under the ♠2?

If not then it should simply be restored to East's hand without being exposed and there is no rectification. (Law 58 B 1)

If it was indeed visible then East decides which of the ♠2 and ♠3 is played (Law 58 B 2) and the other becomes a minor penalty card (Law 50 B)

End of story except that the behaviour of SB (as usual) is absolutely unacceptable.

Edit: South, being Declarer cannot have any penalty card!

East has the two and three of spades and has played two cards. East is a defender and has a minor penalty card.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2019-March-25, 08:00, said:

Was the ♠3 initially visible under the ♠2?

If not then it should simply be restored to East's hand without being exposed and there is no rectification. (Law 58 B 1)

If it was indeed visible then East decides which of the ♠2 and ♠3 is played (Law 58 B 2) and the other becomes a minor penalty card (Law 50 B)

End of story except that the behaviour of SB (as usual) is absolutely unacceptable.

Edit: South, being Declarer cannot have any penalty card!

As SB would say "I don't think you are assisting. Perhaps a visit to Specsavers is called for?"

[weejonnie]

 Tramticket, on 2019-March-25, 08:31, said:

Law 50 E 4 would seem to apply. The outcome of the play with RR on lead may well have been different without the penalty card and as such, North / South have been damaged.

It is difficult to gauge the probable outcome without the penalty card, with RR on lead. I adjust - probably with a weighted average result.

But what to?

If the ♠2 is played and the ♠3 not seen then RR 'knows' Charlie only has one spade and no doubt will then lead another ♠ for a ruff, 'knowing' that Charlie will then cash his Ace for one off - thus not needing to have to guess which minor suit to lead. (which would also depend on Ch Ch needing to hold AQ of said minor.

So I think there is certainly an element of 5♠+1 to be considered. Maybe a good player would get a worse ruling than RR since it can be argued that RR wouldn't think of the above

[pran]

 Tramticket, on 2019-March-25, 09:11, said:

East has the two and three of spades and has played two cards. East is a defender and has a minor penalty card.

Sorry - I don't know how, but I suddenly mixed up East vs South.
I have restored my original posts.

[sanst]

As usual a most unlikely story. “No time to wash his hands”? Try the other. That being said, it’s the dummy who is the first to draw attention to the irregularity, which should also be taken into acoount. EW gain through the knowledge of the mpc and that advantage should be taken away. N deserves a PP, SB should be banned from the venue.
Why Folkestone of all places? Experienced a very sticky pavlova there? And eating Pavlova? Did they serve the corpse of the ballerina, who has been dead for the best part of a century?

[sanst]

Thinkng about it, comng to the table with sticky hands is certainly not “carefully avoid[ing] any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game”. Taking too long for your meal and showing up afterwards with the remains of it sticking to you, deserves a PP as well.

[lamford]

 weejonnie, on 2019-March-25, 17:53, said:

But what to?

If the ♠2 is played and the ♠3 not seen then RR 'knows' Charlie only has one spade and no doubt will then lead another ♠ for a ruff, 'knowing' that Charlie will then cash his Ace for one off - thus not needing to have to guess which minor suit to lead. (which would also depend on Ch Ch needing to hold AQ of said minor.

So I think there is certainly an element of 5♠+1 to be considered. Maybe a good player would get a worse ruling than RR since it can be argued that RR wouldn't think of the above

If East did not have an MPC, RR would have miscounted the spades (or his GA would make sure he did), and he would still have interpreted the (singleton) two of spades as suit preference for clubs (he did when it seemed to be a forced play). Also, when the TD consulted players with the same NGS as RR, they all switched because South had played the nine of spades, "obviously his only one". Half switched to a club and half to a diamond. So, a very small percentage for GA being asleep at the wheel and letting it through as RR's "lucky guess" cannot be taken away.

[lamford]

 sanst, on 2019-March-26, 02:51, said:

That being said, it’s the dummy who is the first to draw attention to the irregularity, which should also be taken into account. N deserves a PP, SB should be banned from the venue.

I disagree. Dummy is also attempting to prevent an irregularity (a fifth card played to a trick) under 45E, which he is entitled to do. And you have not given any indication of what SB did wrong other than his manner.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2019-March-25, 08:00, said:

Was the ♠3 initially visible under the ♠2?

No, it was not, but it was clear (at least to WW) that there was a second card under the ♠2. So, I agree that the three of spades should have been returned to East's hand, except that it became exposed in the act of separating it from the two of spades and I think it is correctly dealt with under Law 50B, and Tramticket's ruling is correct. If North is not entitled to draw attention to the infraction of playing two cards to one trick, then I think that there is no rectification.

[lamford]

 sanst, on 2019-March-26, 02:51, said:

As usual a most unlikely story.

As usual almost exactly as happened with embellishments to the dramatis personae. And it seems strange that there are two laws devoted to two cards played simultaneously if the story is so unlikely.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2019-March-26, 04:44, said:

No, it was not, but it was clear (at least to WW) that there was a second card under the ♠2. So, I agree that the three of spades should have been returned to East's hand, except that it became exposed in the act of separating it from the two of spades and I think it is correctly dealt with under Law 50B, and Tramticket's ruling is correct. If North is not entitled to draw attention to the infraction of playing two cards to one trick, then I think that there is no rectification.

Why on earth should the ♠3 be exposed during the act?
Once the players discover that two cards have been played while only one of them is exposed then every effort should be taken to avoid exposure of the other card so that nobody can tell (for sure) the identity of that card.

The best way of accomplishing this might usually be to restore both played cards to East's hand and then play only the desired card.

[RMB1]

Dummy drew attention to the irregularity. I would restore the S3 to defender's hand without exposing it and deem it not a penalty card. If dummy named the card as being S3 then this information is authorised to West and not to South. Play continues.

[barmar]

Didn't we go through this "could have been aware" stuff a couple of years ago when someone was drinking tea and spilled it, causing someone to drop a card. SB claimed that they could have been aware that an accident like this would happen and it could work to their advantage.

I called BS then, and call the same thing now.

[weejonnie]

 barmar, on 2019-March-26, 21:51, said:

Didn't we go through this "could have been aware" stuff a couple of years ago when someone was drinking tea and spilled it, causing someone to drop a card. SB claimed that they could have been aware that an accident like this would happen and it could work to their advantage.

I called BS then, and call the same thing now.

VM certainly has a story when HH spills a glass of Chatreuse (other liquers are available) on a card to ensure RR discarded the clean one - I presume that comes under "Dummy must not participate in the play of the hand". (IIRC it went to appeal to the Monster Points committee).

[sanst]

 lamford, on 2019-March-26, 04:45, said:

As usual almost exactly as happened with embellishments to the dramatis personae. And it seems strange that there are two laws devoted to two cards played simultaneously if the story is so unlikely.

Of course I know that. If the case is about the two cards played to the trick, the crucial question is whether both were exposed and if so, who is responsible for that. As written by others, the unexposed card should have been restored to the hand without any of the players seeing it.

[sanst]

 lamford, on 2019-March-26, 04:25, said:

And you have not given any indication of what SB did wrong other than his manner.

Don’t you think his manner is a gross violation of law 74 as well as of the manners you might expect in a civilized society? Hopefully the Brexit doesn’t result in

Quote

"No it is not, you moron", replied SB, South. "It is a m-m-m-inor penalty card under Law 50B," he mimicked, and it is authorised to all the players at the table while it remains face up, under Law 50E1. I don't think you are assisting so you can go back to your cubby hole."

becoming normal behavior in Britain. In any sport you wil sent off when you behave like this to the referee, umpire and the like.

[lamford]

 sanst, on 2019-March-27, 10:48, said:

Don’t you think his manner is a gross violation of law 74 as well as of the manners you might expect in a civilized society?

As SB has pointed out many, many times, Law 74 is a "should" law - (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s
rights but not often penalised). And he is quite happy with a PP - in fact he collects them instead of master points. You were suggesting banning him from the club for a minor infraction that is "not often penalised".

If you ban SB for a breach of Law 74, then you have to sentence WW to 20 years hard labour for his breach of 9A4, a "may not" clause.