[lamford]

---

Teams, 16-board match; Opening Lead ♠K; Table Result NS+50.

I was unsurprised to learn that Sweden has its Secretary Birds, and South at this table was quick to take advantage of his partner's infraction. North, an RR lookalike, was a rather hapless character who was always mislaying his pen, and exposed the king of spades while writing down the contract. SB, South, could picture a likely layout immediately, and called the director to indicate that he felt ethically bound to inform the TD that he had seen the king of spades in his partner's hand, and it now became a major penalty card, and had to be led at the first opportunity which was trick one. West was happy to waive the penalty, but SB was having none of it, and the TD was forced to come down on SB's side. Declarer had to win the first spade, and tried to cash three rounds of hearts, but SB discarded a diamond, and declarer could not get home. South discarded a further diamond on the next heart and then ruffed the last heart high, underled his ace, king of clubs and got a diamond ruff for the setting trick.

"Excellent opening salvo, partner", goaded SB. "You were quick to appreciate the need to prevent declarer from ducking a club at trick two, and you found the only antidote to that Scissors Coup; if declarer had ducked a club I would have played three more rounds of spades, and declarer would be down." West thought SB had only owned up to seeing the king of spades because it was in his interests, but SB took exception to this remark, and wanted the TD, who had stayed to watch the play, to give West a PP for breach of 74A2. The TD seemed unhappy that North had gained from his infraction, but SB responded, "How could North have been aware that his infraction could benefit his side, when he is never even aware of where his pen is?" The TD ruled out a Law 23 adjustment but was considering an adjustment under 16C2(c) but SB pointed out to him that this specified "seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins", so the TD would be wrong to implement this clause. How would you rule?

And this was a genuine hand, for once, although some of the detail may have been embellished, as can be seen at
http://www.swangames...h=0000000000111

[barmar]

The Law says you're not required to call attention to an infraction by your own side. Nowhere does it say that you should only do so when it's against your interests; presumably, it's exactly the opposite: you can keep quiet if calling attention would damage your side. I don't see how we can punish SB for calling attention when he knows that the rectification would be helpful to his side.

It seems very unlikely that North could have known that exposing the trump king could help their side. The only possible argument in that direction is that giving partner any information about the contents of your hand could be helpful. But if the lawmakers intended anything like that, we would probably have very different laws on penalty cards.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2014-September-03, 08:50, said:

Teams, 16-board match; Opening Lead ♠K; Table Result NS+50.
I was unsurprised to learn that Sweden has its Secretary Birds, and South at this table was quick to take advantage of his partner's infraction. North, an RR lookalike, was a rather hapless character who was always mislaying his pen, and exposed the king of spades at the end of his hand while writing down the contract. SB, South, could picture a likely layout immediately, and called the director to indicate that he felt ethically bound to inform the TD that he had seen the king of spades in his partner's hand, and it now became a major penalty card, and had to be led at the first opportunity which was trick one. West was happy to waive the penalty, but SB was having none of it, and the TD was forced to come down on SB's side. Declarer had to win the first spade, and tried to cash three rounds of hearts, but SB discarded a diamond, and declarer could not get home. South discarded a further diamond on the next heart and then ruffed the last heart high, underled his ace, king of clubs and got a diamond ruff for the setting trick.
"Excellent opening salvo, partner", goaded SB. "You were quick to appreciate the need to prevent declarer from ducking a club at trick two, and you found the only antidote to that Scissors Coup; if declarer had ducked a club I would have played three more rounds of spades, and declarer would be down." West thought SB had only owned up to seeing the king of spades because it was in his interests, but SB took exception to this remark, and wanted the TD, who had stayed to watch the play, to give West a PP for breach of 74A2. The TD seemed unhappy that North had gained from his infraction, but SB responded, "How could North have been aware that his infraction could benefit his side, when he is never even aware of where his pen is?" The TD ruled out a Law 23 adjustment but was considering an adjustment under 16C2© but SB pointed out to him that this specified "seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins", so the TD would be wrong to implement this clause. How would you rule?
And this was a genuine hand, for once, although some of the detail may have been embellished, as can be seen at
http://www.swangames...h=0000000000111

---

Might declarer argue that SB was not "ethically bound to call the director", as he claimed. On the contrary, SB called the director because he felt that action was in his best interests; but SB's realization that ♠K was likely to be a good lead was a conclusion derived from unauthorised information...

TFLB, L24 said:

[SNIP] Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non-offending side but unauthorized for the offending side.[/SNIP]

[pran]

nige1, on 2014-September-03, 14:02, said:

[...]but SB's realization that ♠K was likely to be a good lead was a conclusion derived from unauthorised information...

Don't put the cart before the horse: This part of law 24 applies subsequent to an exposed card having become a penalty card, not before!

[blackshoe]

Several points occur to me.

1. Somebody needs to take the SB out behind the barn and teach him not to be such a jerk.

2. It's perfectly legal and ethical to call attention to your own side's irregularity, whether you perceive an advantage to your side is not relevant. OTOH, the SB's claim that he felt "ethically bound" is pure BS.

3. Nigel is absolutely right about the UI question. The question is whether that affects SB's actions outside the bidding and play, i.e. in calling the director and insisting that the director not waive the penalty. I don't think it affects his right to call the director. As for the waiver, see below.

4. Only the director has the right to assess rectifications (Law 10A). The SB seems unaware of this law.

5. The director, and the director alone, has the right to waive rectification. The SB's insistence is irrelevant, and the director is certainly not "forced" to reject West's request for that waiver. The problem here is that if the SB can visualize that making the ♠K a MPC would be advantageous to his side (I'm tempted to say "to him" because it seems pretty clear he doesn't give a damn about his partner) then perhaps West can see that waiving the penalty might be advantageous to his side. Law 81C5 says that the director has the power "to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, on the request of the non-offending side". I would tell the SB his opinion on the waiver question is not relevant. If he argues, I'll give him a chance to shut up. If he doesn't, he gets a DP. So, back to the question. First, is there a "cause" here for which one might waive the penalty? Sure. North is clumsy. That should be enough. However, there's also the question of whether West can see the advantage in the waiver. Much as I want to grant it, if only to stick it to the SB, I don't think that's justified.

6. Law 24 does make the ♠K a major penalty card. It also refers us to Law 50, which says among other things "…is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (see Law 49, and Law 23 may apply). There's no guidance on when the director should "designate otherwise". Duplicate Decisions (an ACBL reference for club directors) suggests that some action by an opponent (such as spilling coffee in a player's lap) which cause a player to expose a card or cards is sufficient, but we don't have that here. Law 49 is not relevant to this question, and we've already rejected Law 23, so it's a MPC and the play proceeds.

7. SB's "goading" comment, and his denigration of his partner's bridge ability, are both infractions of Law 74A2. I would issue him a PP for each.

[lamford]

pran, on 2014-September-03, 14:55, said:

Don't put the cart before the horse: This part of law 24 applies subsequent to an exposed card having become a penalty card, not before!

You are right. And once the king of spades became a major penalty card, declarer was down. I wonder if the TD might use Law 12B1. "The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent."

Normally, of course, exposing a card before the opening lead cannot benefit, and it does not here, as North always can lead the king of spades anyway. However, it does leave a sour taste that SB can benefit from "owning up" that he has seen it.

[nige1]

pran, on 2014-September-03, 14:55, said:

Don't put the cart before the horse:
This part of law 24 applies subsequent to an exposed card having become a penalty card, not before!

TFLB L24 (relevant sentences high-lighted below) seems to disagree with pran and lamford...

TFLB L24 said:

When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player's own error one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until the auction period ends. Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non-offending side but unauthorized for the offending side. If the offender becomes declarer or dummy the cards are picked up and returned to the hand. If the offender becomes a defender every such card becomes a penalty card (see Law 50), then...[SNIP]

[lamford]

nige1, on 2014-September-03, 17:12, said:

TFLB L24 (relevant sentence high-lighted below) seems to disagree with pran...

It does not disagree. The fact that North has the king of spades is unauthorised to South, but only once it becomes a penalty card, and then it has to be led moments later, so it becomes authorised as it then derives from the legal plays of the current board. South is not obliged to call the TD when he sees it, but can do so.

[pran]

nige1, on 2014-September-03, 17:12, said:

TFLB L24 (relevant sentences high-lighted below) seems to disagree with pran and lamford...

What Law 24 says is essentially this:

The fact that your partner has a penalty card and that (if it is a major penalty card) he must play it at his first legal opportunity is AI to you.
The fact that he for instance wanted to lead it (out of turn) is UI to you.
If for any reason the penalty card ceases to be a penalty card and is restored to his hand the fact that he (still) has this card becomes UI to you.

Probably the most important (and for many players: unknown) effect of this is that if you have the lead and declarer lets you play whichever suit you want then you may not select the suit from your knowledge of partner's penalty card, but if you (without using that UI) select to play the penalty card suit you may select which card within that suit to play from that knowledge.

Difficult? - not really. Just keep in mind that so long as the penalty card is visible the fact that it must be played when legal is AI, but the circumstances why it became a penalty card is UI.

[szgyula]

Can't you just simply apply 16C3? He saw a card belonging to another player but not before auctiion begins. 16C1 does not apply (it happened later). 16C3 seems to says that if the extraneous information is received after the first call in the auction, than the list of options in 16C2 is reduced © and implicitly (d). The ♠K clearly may have influenced the result. Notice conditional and notice result (not bid, play, etc.). I would consider using this rule.

One more argument: 81C5 says that directory may wave a rectification upon request. I would say he could do so in this case. Now the objection of the OS is an unauthorized information which may prevent the lead of an ♠K: Might the obsejtion suggest that a ♠K lead is good? Yes. Was there any legal ground to object? No. Are there logical alternatives? Yes.

It is pushing things beyond reason but you know what is happening...

[lamford]

szgyula, on 2014-September-04, 08:30, said:

Can't you just simply apply 16C3? He saw a card belonging to another player but not before auctiion begins. 16C1 does not apply (it happened later). 16C3 seems to says that if the extraneous information is received after the first call in the auction, than the list of options in 16C2 is reduced © and implicitly (d). The ♠K clearly may have influenced the result. Notice conditional and notice result (not bid, play, etc.). I would consider using this rule.

One more argument: 81C5 says that directory may wave a rectification upon request. I would say he could do so in this case. Now the objection of the OS is an unauthorized information which may prevent the lead of an ♠K: Might the obsejtion suggest that a ♠K lead is good? Yes. Was there any legal ground to object? No. Are there logical alternatives? Yes.

It is pushing things beyond reason but you know what is happening...

Your suggestions are reasonable. However, there is a WBFLC minute that a more specific Law takes precedence over a general Law. Here Law 24 is pretty specific that the king of spades becomes a major penalty card, and has to be led at the first opportunity. Also Law 84B states: "If the case is clearly covered by a Law that prescribes the rectification for the irregularity, the TD determines that rectification and ensures that it is implemented." I think his hands are tied, and SB triumphs yet again.

Also we have 12B2: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. I wonder if anybody out there knows what happens when this conflicts with 12A1: The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-03, 15:11, said:

Several points occur to me.

1. Somebody needs to take the SB out behind the barn and teach him not to be such a jerk.

That's pretty much a given, isn't it? We only hear about SB when he's being a jerk.

Quote

2. It's perfectly legal and ethical to call attention to your own side's irregularity, whether you perceive an advantage to your side is not relevant. OTOH, the SB's claim that he felt "ethically bound" is pure BS.

True. As far as SB is concerned, the only "ethics" are those required by a literal reading of the Laws. It seems like he was saying "ethically bound" to contrast with "legally bound", as a way of being sarcastic about it.

Quote

4. Only the director has the right to assess rectifications (Law 10A). The SB seems unaware of this law.

This one is minor. It seems like SB was not actually assessing rectification, just reminding the TD of the rectfication that he knows the TD would be required to assess. After all, SB has the lawbook memorized.

Quote

5. The director, and the director alone, has the right to waive rectification. The SB's insistence is irrelevant, and the director is certainly not "forced" to reject West's request for that waiver. The problem here is that if the SB can visualize that making the ♠K a MPC would be advantageous to his side (I'm tempted to say "to him" because it seems pretty clear he doesn't give a damn about his partner) then perhaps West can see that waiving the penalty might be advantageous to his side. Law 81C5 says that the director has the power "to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, on the request of the non-offending side". I would tell the SB his opinion on the waiver question is not relevant. If he argues, I'll give him a chance to shut up. If he doesn't, he gets a DP. So, back to the question. First, is there a "cause" here for which one might waive the penalty? Sure. North is clumsy. That should be enough. However, there's also the question of whether West can see the advantage in the waiver. Much as I want to grant it, if only to stick it to the SB, I don't think that's justified.

Since the waiver is not justified, doesn't that mean the TD is forced to assess it? I took that statement in the OP as implying that the TD had used the above logic and came to the same conclusion that you did.

Quote

6. Law 24 does make the ♠K a major penalty card. It also refers us to Law 50, which says among other things "…is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (see Law 49, and Law 23 may apply). There's no guidance on when the director should "designate otherwise". Duplicate Decisions (an ACBL reference for club directors) suggests that some action by an opponent (such as spilling coffee in a player's lap) which cause a player to expose a card or cards is sufficient, but we don't have that here. Law 49 is not relevant to this question, and we've already rejected Law 23, so it's a MPC and the play proceeds.

Agreed. I think it takes an extraordinary circumstance to designate otherwise.

Quote

7. SB's "goading" comment, and his denigration of his partner's bridge ability, are both infractions of Law 74A2. I would issue him a PP for each.

As pointed out in #1, SB is definitely a jerk. In fact, he seems to have gone beyond his usual pedantics this time, are we sure it wasn't Chthonic?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-September-04, 10:46, said:

Since the waiver is not justified, doesn't that mean the TD is forced to assess it? I took that statement in the OP as implying that the TD had used the above logic and came to the same conclusion that you did.

I think "forced" is an overbid. The TD is required by the laws and, I would presume, by his own sense of ethics, to rule according to the laws. But he is not "forced". No one is holding a gun to his head, although I'm sure the SB would like to do so.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-04, 11:12, said:

I think "forced" is an overbid. The TD is required by the laws and, I would presume, by his own sense of ethics, to rule according to the laws. But he is not "forced". No one is holding a gun to his head, although I'm sure the SB would like to do so.

It looks like he's using this definition of "force":

Quote

make (someone) do something against their will: she was forced into early retirement | [ trans. ] the universities were forced to cut staff.

The TD would prefer not to assess the rectification, so it's against his will, but his duties as a TD require him to do so. As the examples demonstrate, it doesn't have to involve extreme or physical force, just a necessity to do something you'd rather not (no one is holding a gun to the universities' heads).

Another example would be: Your argument is sound, I'm forced to agree with you.

I could imagine the TD admitting that to SB.

[blackshoe]

Language evolves. Enough people misuse a word, the misuse become "proper". Except to stubborn old coots like me. I agree with Nero Wolfe: "Contact is not a verb!"

[mycroft]

I do agree that this particular SB, who seems to have memorised the entire rulebook except for Chapter VII, deserves to be given "an invitation to the world", in whatever form that is required to take. I certainly hope this is an individual, so that I can PP the contestant without worrying about all the other contestants.

I would like to say that a West that asked me to waive, for cause (this guy's clearly clumsy, and has issues with his hands), the Law 24 issue and let him put the card back into his hand, would get a hearing. I'm not 100% sure that I would grant it; I guess it would depend if this particular SB treats everybody the same as his partner and opponents. If it was granted, then I would definitely rule the presence of the card AI to all (including the SB - I would have to, wouldn't I? Declarer waived the penalty!), and the opening leader's panic over what I proposed to do UI to the opening leader.

I do know that the time I did in fact waive a PC penalty "for cause" was exactly this one; third hand managed to drop what was clearly one suit on the table, 4 clubs (to the 8 or something). This 85-year-old true LOL, with shaking hands, against two very A players who seemed very uncomfortable about enforcing the penalty, and eventually asked me if there was a way around this. Of course at this table we didn't have an opening leader who really really wanted to put the pair under those restrictions, because it would clearly help.

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2014-September-04, 10:46, said:

That's pretty much a given, isn't it? We only hear about SB when he's being a jerk.

Not sure. We used to hear about this person only when he was being an SB. This jerk streak is a more modern innovation - I assume he's been reading Mollo and has decided that the Noble Writer casts a bad light on him, and he should therefore attempt to emulate one of his colleagues instead.

As might be assumed (from a quick look left if no other way), I don't equate Secretary Birdship with Jerk, necessarily. In fact, the original one usually got hoist on his own, very plush and generous, petard, rather than either gaining or crowing.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2014-September-04, 16:00, said:

As might be assumed (from a quick look left if no other way), I don't equate Secretary Birdship with Jerk, necessarily. In fact, the original one usually got hoist on his own, very plush and generous, petard, rather than either gaining or crowing.

The modern-day SB has read all the WBFLC minutes as well, and is very wary of using the Laws to his disadvantage. He does not care two hoots what other people think about him. He thinks the Coubertin Olympic motto should not be "The most important thing is not to win but to take part!" and his version is "The most important thing is not to take part but to win by any legal means!" Fortunately, he is a mythical character, as was his predecessor. But even a mythical character is entitled to correct rulings from a TD.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-September-04, 17:05, said:

But even a mythical character is entitled to correct rulings from a TD.

Mythical or not, given his recent behavior, those correct rulings will often include significant procedural or disciplinary penalties, or both.

[mycroft]

...leading very quickly to "I'm exercising my right to refuse to sell you an entry. Note that this is *not* because you are exercising your Lawful options to best effect, but because you abuse your partner, your opponents, and me. Call me in November, maybe we'll try again."

As I said, "an invitation to the world" (Callahan, IIRC).

Note: I really do appreciate the structure and purpose of these articles; they bring up a very good point in a very good way. I look forward to them as they come. I've just spent enough time losing tables because "that person will be there, and he's obnoxious"; and have enough of a passive-aggressive streak in me to, if the player is going to try both to win at the table and win by demeanour and arguing with the TD in a demeaning way, look for legal methods of lighting the fuse on whatever SB is sitting on - including saying "your money is no longer welcome here."