[RMB1]

 helene_t, on 2016-September-06, 04:56, said:

I thought that the UI restrictions in this situations are to interpretted as "East is entitled to know that if W has ♠A then he must play it, however, East is not entitled to know that W actually has ♠A"

If the adjustment is under Law 50E3 then this is not a "UI" law and it is possible to give a weighted ruling that includes a proportion of the table result. Law 50E3 does not say that using the information conveyed by the the exposed card is illegal.

[Trinidad]

 VixTD, on 2016-September-06, 04:05, said:

Since there seems to be considerable doubt about whether East should or would cover the queen if there's no penalty card opposite I hope no TD is going to give SB 100% of a making slam. As DWS used to be so keen to remind us, weighted scores should be considered normal rather than the exception when more than one outcome is possible.

I don't see it this way.

I believe you British would call that a Reveley ruling.

• Either covering is an LA. In that case, East will have to cover, otherwise he is using UI. If East ducks, then that is an infraction. An AS will be assigned reflecting what would happen without the infraction (i.e. 100% of East covering).
  
• Or covering is not an LA. In that case, East is allowed to duck without any consequences.

For me, covering is not an LA, so there are no consequences. But if the TD would decide that covering is an LA (and that the fact that West will play the ♠A is UI) then the AS will be 100% x 6♠=.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

 VixTD, on 2016-September-06, 04:05, said:

Since there seems to be considerable doubt about whether East should or would cover the queen if there's no penalty card opposite I hope no TD is going to give SB 100% of a making slam. As DWS used to be so keen to remind us, weighted scores should be considered normal rather than the exception when more than one outcome is possible.

SB should get none of it in this case, as I pointed out earlier, failing to cover guarantees the slam goes off even if partner has Jx. Change your hearts to Q102 and it's more of an issue.

Basically ♠Axxx, 3 hearts, ♦Axxx, ♣AK can't make with any heart holding that doesn't make it a 2N opener.

[pran]

 helene_t, on 2016-September-06, 04:56, said:

I thought that the UI restrictions in this situations are to interpretted as "East is entitled to know that if W has ♠A then he must play it, however, East is not entitled to know that W actually has ♠A".

The way I understand the clarification from WBFLC is that the knowledge of a partner's penalty card is UI for the purpose of selecting a suit to lead, but AI for the purpose of selecting which of his cards in the suit of that penalty card to play when he legally shall play a card in that suit.

So yes, the knowledge that partner holds and must play his ♠A is AI to East in this situation. This knowledge ceases to be AI if (and when) that card ceases to be a penalty card.

[VixTD]

 Trinidad, on 2016-September-06, 05:12, said:

I don't see it this way.

I believe you British would call that a Reveley ruling.

• Either covering is an LA. In that case, East will have to cover, otherwise he is using UI. If East ducks, then that is an infraction. An AS will be assigned reflecting what would happen without the infraction (i.e. 100% of East covering).
  
• Or covering is not an LA. In that case, East is allowed to duck without any consequences.

For me, covering is not an LA, so there are no consequences. But if the TD would decide that covering is an LA (and that the fact that West will play the ♠A is UI) then the AS will be 100% x 6♠=.

Rik

As Robin explains above (his post arrived about the same time as yours), this is not what some British call a "Reveley ruling" because law 50E1 makes it clear that it is authorized information to East that West is going to play the ace on this trick, so East is well within his rights to play low. (Indeed, to do otherwise would be foolish.) However, whatever part of his score the TD judges he might have gained from the penalty card will be forfeit under law 50E3.

Of course if you think that no East would cover, or that East would always cover, 100% of one or other score would be right. I'd poll a number of other chimps and make a judgement on how likely it would be.

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-06, 05:45, said:

SB should get none of it in this case, as I pointed out earlier, failing to cover guarantees the slam goes off <snip>

Not so, South could have Axxxx KJ Axxx AK. That looks like a sound slam-try opposite a limit raise, which MM did not have. Now you have to cover, or declarer just needs to get the hearts right. So, covering is an LA. The question is whether East used the UI. It is AI that West must play the ace of spades on this trick, but UI that he has it. If East knew that West had the ace of spades (if South had cashed the ace, king of hearts foolishly for example), then East would have been entitled to play low, because he can know work out from AI that his partner has the ace of spades, or South would have a 22 count. He can also work out from the AI that his partner has to play it on this trick. He is only entitled to play low when there is no LA to playing low. So, we poll ten corgis, removing the non-established revoke and the MPC, and if a significant number of them cover (RR rule 1: cover an honour with an honour, pard), we adjust to 100% of 6S=, as any smaller percentage would be illegal. Nothing in the WBFLC minute overrides East's Law 16 and Law 73 obligations. If you think you have to adjust under 50E, then you can indeed award some percentage of 6S=, but I think that this is a UI case first and foremost.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2016-September-06, 06:06, said:

The way I understand the clarification from WBFLC is that the knowledge of a partner's penalty card is UI for the purpose of selecting a suit to lead, but AI for the purpose of selecting which of his cards in the suit of that penalty card to play when he legally shall play a card in that suit.

So yes, the knowledge that partner holds and must play his ♠A is AI to East in this situation. This knowledge ceases to be AI if (and when) that card ceases to be a penalty card.

Nothing in the WBFLC minute indicates that the knowledge of partner's penalty card is anything other than UI for any purpose. I cannot see any reference to "just for deciding which suit to lead". If you can work out that he must have the ace of spades, then and only then are you entitled to play low on this trick.

[Cyberyeti]

 lamford, on 2016-September-06, 09:11, said:

Not so, South could have Axxxx KJ Axxx AK. That looks like a sound slam-try opposite a limit raise, which MM did not have. Now you have to cover, or declarer just needs to get the hearts right. So, covering is an LA. The question is whether East used the UI. It is AI that West must play the ace of spades on this trick, but UI that he has it. If East knew that West had the ace of spades (if South had cashed the ace, king of hearts foolishly for example), then East would have been entitled to play low, because he can know work out from AI that his partner has the ace of spades, or South would have a 22 count. He can also work out from the AI that his partner has to play it on this trick. He is only entitled to play low when there is no LA to playing low. So, we poll ten corgis, removing the non-established revoke and the MPC, and if a significant number of them cover (RR rule 1: cover an honour with an honour, pard), we adjust to 100% of 6S=, as any smaller percentage would be illegal. Nothing in the WBFLC minute overrides East's Law 16 and Law 73 obligations. If you think you have to adjust under 50E, then you can indeed award some percentage of 6S=, but I think that this is a UI case first and foremost.

Queen is ZP from that holding, if declarer had the A (and 5 of them), he would have banged it down hoping for a stiff K.

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-06, 09:33, said:

Queen is ZP from that holding, if declarer had the A (and 5 of them), he would have banged it down hoping for a stiff K.

No, he wouldn't. From East's point of view the MPC might be the jack of spades. SB would know that you had the king, as RR would not have revoked on the king of clubs if he had the king of spades. Also restricted choice says that he is as likely to have revoked with a putative ten of spades as well. If you are not going to cover, then SB would always run the queen of spades. And it is his only chance if declarer has Axxx KJ Axx AKxx. That also looks slammish and SB would open 1S on that, playing with someone such as Molly. As I said, we have to poll ten corgis and see what they do. The chances of them working out how likely ducking is to cost, based on whether South had four or five spades, are minimal. And the chance of RR giving count on the second round in diamonds is non-existent too.

[Cyberyeti]

 lamford, on 2016-September-06, 09:44, said:

No, he wouldn't. From East's point of view the MPC might be the jack of spades. If you are not going to cover, then SB would run the queen of spades. And it is his only chance if declarer has Axxx KJ Axx AKxx. That also looks slammish.

And declarer will look the biggest moron in history if he plays that way and the spades were J10/K it's his only possible way of going off.

Also declarer and partner are probably known to hold an even number of diamonds by partner's carding.

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-06, 09:55, said:

And declarer will look the biggest moron in history if he plays that way and the spades were J10/K it's his only possible way of going off.

Also declarer and partner are probably known to hold an even number of diamonds by partner's carding.

East does not have a partner. RR is sitting opposite. And Axxx KJ Axxx AKx is also a hand where declarer has to play this way. I don't think it is the declarer who is a moron. It is someone who thinks that RR's carding has any meaning at all. And J opposite KT is twice as likely as JT opposite K. Against you I would run the queen. Against some people, I would lay down the ace, but never when I have only four spades, obviously. And I am reliably informed by SB that West played his lowest diamond and lowest club at trick two, three and four. As RR-CC were not an established partnership (it was an individual) they had not decided whether they played current or original count on the second round (either were permitted). RR likes to play current count (as he can rarely remember how many he started with) but nothing was agreed. So East cannot discern whether South had four or five spades.

Given the threadbare dummy, it is quite likely that SB is trying to pull a fast one in a hopeless contract. Indeed that was the case, wasn't it?

[lamford]

 pran, on 2016-September-03, 10:58, said:

As I wrote: Had the ♠A no longer been visible to East at this time then SB might have a case.

This is the most ridiculous statement I have seen in many a moon. The ace of spades is just as much UI if it is currently an MPC as if it has been picked up. It is only AI after it is played legally or the player is known to have it from the auction or play.

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-04, 13:33, said:

<snip>that you play 4 card majors doesn't mean you open 1♠ on a 4♠4♦(23) automatically<snip>

On the five occasions he had an opening bid in the evening, SB opened the major rather than the minor. He would have done everything possible to prevent MM getting her paws hooves on the dummy, including responding 3NT with 4-4 in the majors!

[Cyberyeti]

 lamford, on 2016-September-06, 09:59, said:

East does not have a partner. RR is sitting opposite. And Axxx KJ Axxx AKx is also a hand where declarer has to play this way. I don't think it is the declarer who is a moron. It is someone who thinks that RR's carding has any meaning at all. And J opposite KT is twice as likely as JT opposite K. Against you I would run the queen. Against some people, I would lay down the ace, but never when I have only four spades, obviously. And I am reliably informed by SB that West played his lowest diamond and lowest club at trick two, three and four. As RR-CC were not an established partnership (it was an individual) they had not decided whether they played current or original count on the second round (either were permitted). RR likes to play current count (as he can rarely remember how many he started with) but nothing was agreed. So East cannot discern whether South had four or five spades.

Given the threadbare dummy, it is quite likely that SB is trying to pull a fast one in a hopeless contract. Indeed that was the case, wasn't it?

You're moving from impossible hand to impossible hand, declarer is known to have an EVEN number of both minors from W's carding, he will have 3 hearts here if he has 4 spades.

[RMB1]

The EBU L&E committee also tried to construct an example of its understanding of Law 50E3, in EBU White Book 2006, 8.50.2

Quote

Example
Dealer West, EW vulnerable:

W . N . E . S
1NT P . P . 4♠
P . P . P

1NT is 15-17. West leads a club, East plays ♠A, East notices this is a revoke, substitutes ♣2, and South ruffs; the ♠A is a major penalty card. South now leads a small spade and West, holding ♠K doubleton, would have a guess (if it were not for the knowledge of ♠A). It appears that it is legal for West to play small but the TD may adjust the score on the basis that West might get this wrong without the information from the penalty card.

[lamford]

 RMB1, on 2016-September-06, 11:27, said:

The EBU L&E committee also tried to construct an example of its understanding of Law 50E3, in EBU White Book 2006, 8.50.2

I think that West also has a duty to carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI of seeing the ace of spades and to select from among logical alternatives one not demonstrably suggested by the UI. Usually declarer will lay down the ace of spades if he has it, so ducking may well be permitted. A lot depends on dummy, and one has to poll ten people without the UI and see what they do if a low spade is led. If some of them crash the honours, then the TD should give 100% of crashing, not some percentage.

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-06, 10:49, said:

You're moving from impossible hand to impossible hand, declarer is known to have an EVEN number of both minors from W's carding, he will have 3 hearts here if he has 4 spades.

Utter drivel, which you keep repeating, ad nauseam. West is RR who cannot even follow suit, let alone give correct count. Declarer is around 44% to have four spades 35.1/(44.34+35.1), given that SB always opens a four-card major in preference to a four-card minor, and given that RR just always follows with his lowest card, when he manages to play the correct suit. We ignore the times he has six spades when it does not matter. Also when declarer has four spades, the only chance is to cover; when he has five, it is only wrong to cover when partner has stiff ace, and wrong when he has stiff jack. In fact, NOT covering is a serious error.

[lamford]

 sanst, on 2016-September-03, 12:09, said:

For once I'm with SB, who behaved exemplary. There's only one way to make the contract, which requires the spade layout as it is and E covering the queen. SB gives a layout, given East's hand, where not covering would be wrong, so playing the king is a LA. I would rule 6♠= and might even give a DP to EW. RR's infraction is a good example of Law 23 and CC might have used the UI.

Your ruling is fine, but it would be a PP to East for egregious use of UI, rather than a DP. OO did not give one however, as the relevant minutes are so nonsensical that even SB does not know quite what they are intended to mean.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2016-September-06, 09:30, said:

Nothing in the WBFLC minute indicates that the knowledge of partner's penalty card is anything other than UI for any purpose. I cannot see any reference to "just for deciding which suit to lead". If you can work out that he must have the ace of spades, then and only then are you entitled to play low on this trick.

WBFLC made it quite clear that the knowledge of the requirement to play MPC at the first legal option is AI to the offender's partner. This also includes knowing the exact identity of the MPC.

Consequently a player who (for instance) has the King in a suit where his partner has the Ace as MPC cannot be ruled to play his King only to see it covered by the Ace even if it is quite possible that he would have played his King without the knowledge of his partner's Ace. WBC was very explicit on this particular question.

He may however not select among alternative leads one that could be suggested by any knowledge from this MPC.

This includes selecting which suit to lead and it includes selecting which card in a suit to play once the card in question is no longer MPC.

[WellSpyder]

Hooray! Finally I have some idea what to do as either a player or a TD if this sort of situation arises. Thanks to Lamford for raising this thorny issue again, and to RMB and Pran for setting out the EBU L&E and WBFLC attempts to clarify the law. It may not be perfect, and one can argue about whether it is what the law actually says, but at least I now understand what they are saying and it seems workable in practice.