[jillybean]

Plagiarized from a NZ Bridge Directors Discussion.

50 E 1 says. Information derived from a penalty card and the requirements for playing that penalty card are authorized for all players for as long as the penalty card remains on the table.

50 E 4 then says

If following the application of E1 the Director judges at the end of play that without the assistance gained through the exposed card the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board without the effect of the penalty card(s).

I think this may have been discussed here before. E1 and E4 seem to contradict each other.

If my partner has a Major penalty card on the table, K♣ and Declarer exercises his right to demand a club lead. The CLub King is AI , I can lead low from Axxx but then E 4 applies and the Director should adjust the score?

Why isn't the Major penalty card UI for the OS from the start?

[axman]

jillybean, on 2024-February-25, 00:21, said:

Plagiarized from a NZ Bridge Directors Discussion.

50 E 1 says. Information derived from a penalty card and the requirements for playing that penalty card are authorized for all players for as long as the penalty card remains on the table.

50 E 4 then says

If following the application of E1 the Director judges at the end of play that without the assistance gained through the exposed card the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board without the effect of the penalty card(s).

I think this may have been discussed here before. E1 and E4 seem to contradict each other.

If my partner has a Major penalty card on the table, K♣ and Declarer exercises his right to demand a club lead. The CLub King is AI , I can lead low from Axxx but then E 4 applies and the Director should adjust the score?

Why isn't the Major penalty card UI for the OS from the start?

The foundational principle of law is to provide just solutions to problems. The coexistence of 50E1&4, and 16 is repugnant to that principle. Namely, rather than provide solutions it manufactures problems.


As for PC issues. The premature exposure of a card can (or not) make certain actions that otherwise would have been uncertain.

Is it just for L16 to constrain actions that are not probable? I think yes. What about actions that are probable? I think not. What about actions in between? I think it depends giving some weight to the action actually taken in combination to any defense if the action is challenged.

A reason for such a view is that a player must choose a play with the idea that he may (as his best effort) choose only once- there being a limited number of cards from which to select.

So consider the counterfactual of the defender whose partner has a PC CK who actually would have chosen in the absence of the premature exposure to under lead the ace. Questions emerge:

1.. when the PC option is not lead the suit, is it justice?
2. when the PC option is lead the suit, is it justice that a spot is led?
3. when the PC option is lead the suit, is it justice that the ace must be led?
4. when the PC option is lead as you see fit, is it justice that a spot is led?
5. when the PC option is lead as you see fit, is it justice that some other suit is led?
6. when the PC option is lead as you see fit, is it justice that the ace must be led?

The correct answers may be difficult to identify let alone express.

[shyams]

I don't mean to derail the discussion with an ancillary question:

When declarer: (a) insists that opponent lead the suit OR (b) prohibits opponent from leading that suit,
... doesn't the major penalty card {in OP's example, the ♣K} no longer remain a penalty card?

[jillybean]

So the KC is AI unless Declarer exercises his rights to a lead restriction, then it is put back in partners hand and becomes UI for the OS.

KC is on table and declarer says lead anything, now can I lead a low club from Axx

Axman's response still applies

[mycroft]

So, part of this is legal, and part of this caters to "what's gonna happen".

Quote

Why isn't the Major penalty card UI for the OS from the start?

It used to be:

2007 law 50E - now invalid! said:

Information from a Penalty Card
1. Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized
information for all players.
2. Other information derived from sight of a penalty card is unauthorized
for the partner of the player who has the penalty card (but authorized for
declarer).
3. If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such information
as to damage the non-offending side he shall award an adjusted score.

What happened? Players would lead the suit of the penalty card to "get the card off the table" - clearly use of unauthorized information, but unless they said it - and they did, even National Champions - what can you do? Players would use the "fourth-best" or "partner's got the Q" when deciding what to do, even subconsciously - and you could know it for certain, but couldn't prove it to the point of Law 16. And my rephrase was the second least understood one(*): "You are entitled to know that he must play that card if possible, but you are not allowed to know that he has it or wanted to play it." Yeah, sure, huh?

So they changed the Law to reflect "what happens anyway", but added a caveat that is nowhere near as proscriptive as Law 16/73. So, rather than "is there a LA to the play made that would be less successful", it's "without the assistance gained through the exposed card the outcome of the board could well have been different". If knowledge of that card's existence (or "we lead K from KQ, so partner's got the Q", for instance) actually materially affects the play to the defence's benefit, we adjust; not just "when there was an option a few peers might have taken that gives the declarer more tricks". And, instead of 12C1, we have "The adjustment should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board without the effect of the penalty card(s)." Which isn't much different any more, but ->

There's another place in the Laws (and there was even in 2007, before "the grand experiment" expanded it. And at the time, Law 12C1 was more draconian, at least in the "we are a 12C1e" jurisdiction) where the same "not as restrictive as UI, but let's not let the offenders *gain* from it" wording exists. And yeah, it's just as popular.

But note that we haven't got rid of all the confusion - and the OP example shows evidence that it remains confusing. If the PC is returned to the player's hand, knowledge of it becomes unauthorized again (50E2), and if it is played, knowledge of how it became a PC is unauthorized (50E3).

So in the example:

Quote

If my partner has a Major penalty card on the table, ♣K and Declarer exercises his right to demand a club lead.

So, now it is picked up, and now

Quote

The Club King is AI UI

and if

Quote

I [] lead low from Axxx

and playing the Ace is a LA (say partner is KQ tight) we will adjust under Law 16.

It's only if declarer allows any lead, and you

Quote

lead low from Axxx

that

Quote

E4 applies and the Director should may adjust the score

, for instance if that was the way to get partner in for a ruff and she hadn't been able to tell you where her entry was.

(*) Handling "opening pass in fourth seat" back in the pre-2017 days was worse. "You can accept this and open in second seat, if it is to your advantage, or refuse it and open in first seat, at which point..." It's not *much* better with UI and CC, but at least I'm not offering two "identical" options.

[jillybean]

Yes, confusing.
Why not add "exposed card" to 16B1 and loop back to that law.


And while we tidy up the laws, please change the wording of Minor and Major penalty card, this situation happens too frequently:
LHO leads 4♥ out of turn, Director is called and the ruling is 'it's a minor penalty card, play it on your first opportunity'
and walks away.

[mycroft]

First statement: because the Law makers think (and I agree) that "declarer has 3 options, AND L16 applies" is too harsh. Same with Vampyr's issue with insufficient bids (now where did I get that comparison from?)

Second statement: Because we expect directors to actually RTFLB? (and who let that director know about minor Penalty Cards?)

I mean, it would be nice if players actually RTFLB too, to the point where someone, somewhere, would "please, can you read that out of the Law Book?"

But Bridge is filled with smart people (some of them lawyers!) - to the point where one of the most common failings is "demonstrating how smart one is, totally missing how it can be read as how much smarter than partner one is". Amazing how all that goes out the window as soon as Laws or rules on their interaction with the game come into play, though.

No idea where the "too cool for school" attitude ("I don't need to know the Laws, I know how Bridge should be played", or for directors "I don't need to read the ruling from the Law Book, I know the Laws") came from. But that certainly doesn't help, either.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-February-25, 14:41, said:

LHO leads 4♥ out of turn, Director is called and the ruling is 'it's a minor penalty card, play it on your first opportunity'
and walks away.

A Director who walks away from any penalty card situation before the card is played is part of the problem.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-February-25, 13:37, said:

If the PC is returned to the player's hand, knowledge of it becomes unauthorized again (50E2), and if it is played, knowledge of how it became a PC is unauthorized (50E3).

This is I think the key point least obvious to players (and even one Director I know).

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2024-February-25, 13:37, said:

If the PC is returned to the player's hand, knowledge of it becomes unauthorized again (50E2), and if it is played, knowledge of how it became a PC is unauthorized (50E3).

pescetom, on 2024-February-26, 16:16, said:

This is I think the key point least obvious to players (and even one Director I know).

Heck, I haven't even started to consider the rationale behind HOW a card became a PC is unauthorized after it is subsequently played legally. Can anyone explain in simple language?

I'd like to see these laws applied at the club.
50C, you are allowed to play a honour card in the same suit when you have a minor penalty card on the table.
50D2a When Declarer exercises his rights of a lead restriction, the PC goes back in your hand.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2024-February-25, 15:27, said:

I mean, it would be nice if players actually RTFLB too, to the point where someone, somewhere, would "please, can you read that out of the Law Book?"

I once did exactly that. The director replied "I can't. The book's in the car."

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2024-February-26, 16:16, said:

This is I think the key point least obvious to players (and even one Director I know).

Only one?

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2024-February-27, 14:29, said:

Only one?

Don't make me bite my tongue.
Fortunately at most one reads and I'm sure has an open mind on the others