[lamford]

---

6S by South. Lead Q♣! Table result 6S-1.

Amazingly there was a third OLOOT in as many days involving our friend who looks and behaves like SB. Back from Brighton, he was playing at a local club, and reached the poor 6S as South after both sides did a bit too much. His cause was not hindered when East, a client playing with a professional, led the Q♣ out of turn. The TD was called, read South his rights, and read the relevant sections for West. South elected to have the Q♣ stay on the table as an MPC, and West led the Q♥, believing he was not allowed to make the "obvious" king of clubs lead. Declarer drew trumps, eliminated the red suits discarding a club from South, and led towards dummy's ace of clubs. West inserted the king and declarer had to go one down.

SB was still unhappy. He called the TD and suggested that West had UI that his partner possessed the queen of clubs, and there was as much chance of someone of West's ability finding the Crocodile Coup as his own chance of winning the Lotto without buying a ticket. West felt insulted, and said that if South had Qxx of clubs, West would be end-played anyway if he won with the jack or ten, so the play was obvious, and there was no damage. West quoted the WBFLC minute that he was allowed to know his partner would have to play the queen of clubs on this trick, but SB countered that he was not allowed to know his partner possessed it, so the Crocodile Coup was use of UI. How do you rule?

[billw55]

lamford, on 2013-August-22, 05:00, said:

West quoted the WBFLC minute that he was allowed to know his partner would have to play the queen of clubs on this trick, but SB countered that he was not allowed to know his partner possessed it

This one seems trivial. If west has quoted the WBFLC minute correctly (I have not read it), then it is clear, and south's assertion is nonsense. Perhaps there is some complication lurking though.

edit: ok, I went to the other threads and read the quotes. It does not seem at all clear to me now. They should be able to make it clear, but they didn't.

[vigfus]

Never allow this crockodile coup. Law 16D2 and 23
If readers feel that this case is not covered by the laws, then just use common sense. ( which is not so common )

[barmar]

We already have 2 other threads where it's become clear that this situation is not handled well in the Laws, and the minutes don't really help too much. Do you really need to keep posting new threads to drive the point home?

I assume these are all hypotheticals, since it seems like too much of a coincidence that your club would have so many of these in a few days, but I wish you would say so. Or should we just assume that all your threads are hypotheticals? How often do cases like these come up in reality? While it would be nice if the Laws were perfect, how much time do we have to spend on bugs that only have theoretical consequences?

[billw55]

barmar, on 2013-August-22, 07:36, said:

I assume these are all hypotheticals, since it seems like too much of a coincidence that your club would have so many of these in a few days, but I wish you would say so. Or should we just assume that all your threads are hypotheticals?

Most of lamford's threads are constructions, and I always assume so unless he specifically states otherwise. Usually they are interesting constructions though. He does tend to beat dead horses, although I personally had not read the prior threads and therefore got some benefit from this one.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-August-22, 05:00, said:

West felt insulted, and said that if South had Qxx of clubs, West would be end-played anyway if he won with the jack or ten, so the play was obvious, and there was no damage.

This analysis is faulty. Suppose that declarer has ♣Qxx and there has been no infraction. Declarer's natural line is ♣A and a club to the queen, making when RHO has ♣K or LHO has ♣Kx. When the jack or 10 appears on the first round, ducking gains against KJ10(xx) or singleton J/10 on the left, but loses to Jx(xx), 10x(xx) and J10(xx).

So, without the infraction West would not have played the king. It doesn't matter whether what West used was UI or AI. NS were damaged by the West's use of the I, so we adjust under either Law 16 or Law 50E3.

[Edited to correct typo.]

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-August-22, 08:36

[lamford]

barmar, on 2013-August-22, 07:36, said:

I assume these are all hypotheticals, since it seems like too much of a coincidence that your club would have so many of these in a few days, but I wish you would say so. Or should we just assume that all your threads are hypotheticals? How often do cases like these come up in reality? While it would be nice if the Laws were perfect, how much time do we have to spend on bugs that only have theoretical consequences?

My byline states: "Any resemblance to persons or events, real or imaginary, in any of my posts is purely coincidental". And you don't have to spend any time on the matter; you can just move on to another post.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-August-22, 08:04, said:

This analysis is faulty. Suppose that declarer has ♣Qxx and there has been no infraction. Declarer's natural line is ♣A and a club to the queen, making when RHO has ♣K or LHO has ♣Kx. When the jack or 10 appears on the first round, ducking gains against KJ10(xx) or singleton J/10 on the left, but loses to Jx(xx), 10x(xx) and J10(xx).

So, without the infraction West would not have played the king. It doesn't matter whether what West used was UI or MI. NS were damaged by the West's use of the I, so we adjust under either Law 16 or Law 50E3.

OK, West cannot have Kx of clubs, as East has five diamonds, three plus hearts and two spades. West know that East has a singleton club from the authorised information (where it matters South is 5-1-3-4). But I still think you are right that declarer will probably play ace and another. So, I would adjust on this hand.

I agree that the only test is whether playing the king is the only LA. The fact that his partner has the queen of clubs is UI, despite the WBFLC minute.

[fbuijsen]

West has AI, from the bidding and play, that south's hand distribution is 5-1-3-4 (5-1-4-3 or even 5-1-5-2 is also possible, but then the contract is cold). So he knows east has a singleton club.
So south's remaining distribution is ♠Jx ♥- ♦- ♣Qxx/xxx.

Looks to me like west's analysis is correct. The UI of knowing partner has the ♣Q makes it easier, for sure, but I don't see that's enough to adjust the score.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2013-August-22, 08:04, said:

This analysis is faulty. Suppose that declarer has ♣Qxx and there has been no infraction. Declarer's natural line is ♣A and a club to the queen, making when RHO has ♣K or LHO has ♣Kx. When the jack or 10 appears on the first round, ducking gains against KJ10(xx) or singleton J/10 on the left, but loses to Jx(xx), 10x(xx) and J10(xx).

So, without the infraction West would not have played the king. It doesn't matter whether what West used was UI or MI. NS were damaged by the West's use of the I, so we adjust under either Law 16 or Law 50E3.

Which law says you can't use MI? Or are you talking about MI given by your side? In that case the fact that your partner thinks your agreement is different from what it actually is (or what you think it is, anyway) is UI to you (and vice versa).

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-August-22, 08:16, said:

OK, West cannot have Kx of clubs, as East has five diamonds, three plus hearts and two plus spades

I hadn't noticed the diamond break - sorry. However, my conclusion is still right, I think.

The relevant layouts are
Hxx - KHx (6)
HHx - Kxx (3)
Jxxx - K10 (1)
HHxx - Kx (3)
or 13 combinations in favour of playing the ace, and
KHH -xxx (1)
KHHx -xx (3)
KHHxx -x (3)
KHHxxx - void (1) [possibly ruled out by the auction]
or 8 combinations in favour of ducking West's honour.

Even taking into account the effect of vacant spaces, with Qxx it's still right to play ace and another. At least when playing against this West - a player who is capable of playing ♣K from KJ10xx is also capable of playing an honour from Jxxx.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-August-23, 02:37

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-22, 08:32, said:

Which law says you can't use MI? Or are you talking about MI given by your side? In that case the fact that your partner thinks your agreement is different from what it actually is (or what you think it is, anyway) is UI to you (and vice versa).

Sorry, I meant AI, though if you'd been paying attention you'd know that I didn't say you couldn't use it. I've edited the earlier post.

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2013-August-22, 07:36, said:

Or should we just assume that all your threads are hypotheticals?

That would certainly be my recommendation.

Quote

While it would be nice if the Laws were perfect, how much time do we have to spend on bugs that only have theoretical consequences?

I agree that some of lamford's constructs are rather theoretical, or are designed to illustrate somewhat perverse readings of the laws where most of us know what was intended and how to rule in practice. But I have to admit I think the current round of constructs are genuinely interesting, because despite the attempts of various authorities to help interpret this aspect of the laws I still don't really know how I should approach this situation either as a player or, God forbid, as a TD.

[lamford]

vigfus, on 2013-August-22, 07:24, said:

Never allow this crockodile coup. Law 16D2 and 23
If readers feel that this case is not covered by the laws, then just use common sense. ( which is not so common )

I don't think Law 23 is any good. East, a client, could not have known that leading the queen of clubs might gain. I like the use of 16D2, but there is a WBFLC minute that a more specific Law takes priority over a general Law, so 50E1 takes priority over 16D2, I think.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-August-22, 08:32, said:

I hadn't noticed the diamond break - sorry. However, my conclusion is still right, I think.

The relevant layouts are
Hxx - KHx (6)
HHx - Kxx (3)
Jxxx - K10 (1)
HHxx - Kx (3)
or 13 combinations in favour of playing the ace, and
KHH -xxx (1)
KHHx -xx (3)
KHHxx -x (3)
KHHxxx - void (1) [possibly ruled out by the auction]
or 8 combinations in favour of ducking West's honour.

Even taking into account the effect of vacant spaces, with Qxx it's still right to play ace and another.

Yes, I agree with your analysis, unless declarer can discern the 5-4 heart break. Any specific club is 67% to be with West however, so that closes the gap a lot. It does show how the average TD will struggle, as Wellspyder says. Effectively the MPC is UI, and the fact that he has to play it on this trick is UI as well. So why do the Laws say it is AI?

[wanoff]

The only variable in this deal is whether West is asleep or not.
If not, the coup is marked.
The reason is that if West considers declarer may have the Q♣, he will try to show long hearts.
But Wests carding suggests short hearts so declarer will be getting the position right and go for the endplay.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2013-August-22, 08:12, said:

My byline states: "Any resemblance to persons or events, real or imaginary, in any of my posts is purely coincidental". And you don't have to spend any time on the matter; you can just move on to another post.

Sorry, I have signature displays disabled, so I didn't see this.

[fbuijsen]

gnasher, on 2013-August-22, 08:32, said:

I hadn't noticed the diamond break - sorry. However, my conclusion is still right, I think.

The relevant layouts are
Hxx - KHx (6)
HHx - Kxx (3)
Jxxx - K10 (1)
HHxx - Kx (3)
or 13 combinations in favour of playing the ace, and
KHH -xxx (1)
KHHx -xx (3)
KHHxx -x (3)
KHHxxx - void (1) [possibly ruled out by the auction]
or 8 combinations in favour of ducking West's honour.

Even taking into account the effect of vacant spaces, with Qxx it's still right to play ace and another. At least when playing against the West - a player who is capable of playing ♣K from KJ10xx is also capable of playing an honour from Jxxx.

Ah, now I see it. Thanks. Yes, you have to adjust here.

[fbuijsen]

lamford, on 2013-August-22, 08:55, said:

Effectively the MPC is UI, and the fact that he has to play it on this trick is UI as well. So why do the Laws say it is AI?

I think this is that otherwise you will be forcing partner of the MPC holder to play ridiculous cards in a lot of everyday situations with MPCs or, more likely, force the TD to adjust the score in a lot of such situations.
The idea of the semi-automatic handling of situations like LOOTs and MPCs is that the TD can rule without having the need to fully analyse the equity situation and the entire UI situation in great detail. Because that takes a lot of time on every case (lamford's examples do a good job in illustrating that).
Rather, you want the TD to give the somewhat automatic ruling, which in most cases is already costing the offenders points compared to not having made the offense thus solving the situation in a short time and without a lot of work.
The NOS has their own responsibility if they feel they have been inadequately compensated by the standard rulings to appeal to the TD again after the hand.

[gnasher]

fbuijsen, on 2013-August-22, 16:27, said:

Rather, you want the TD to give the somewhat automatic ruling, which in most cases is already costing the offenders points compared to not having made the offense thus solving the situation in a short time and without a lot of work.

But that's not what should happen. After the automatic ruling, the offender's partner is still constrained by the UI, and the TD still has to consider whether to adjust further because of the UI.

For example, suppose that the expected results are:
  With no infraction: offenders +100
  With the infraction and the automatic ruling, with offenders using UI: offenders -620
  With the infraction and the automatic ruling, without offenders using UI: offenders -650
If the offenders use the UI and score -620, the TD should adjust to -650.

Hence there has been no simplification, and no work has been saved.