[campboy]

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

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.

It does matter whether what West used was AI or UI, because if it was AI we adjust based on what would have happened without the LOOT, which may include some percentage of playing the king, and if it was UI we adjust to what would have happened if he hadn't played the king.

[gombo121]

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

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.

I believe that placement of Q of clubs would be UI if declarer have chosen any other option when deciding what to do with LOOT. The penalty card makes AI for partner, as of LC minutes, and this is just fair counterbalance for rather harsh requirement to play this card at the first opportunity.

[lamford]

gombo121, on 2013-August-25, 05:13, said:

The penalty card makes AI for partner, as of LC minutes.

If it is AI, then there still can be an adjustment under 50E3.

[Fluffy]

West might counter saying that south's failure to try for grand should mean that he hasn't got ♣Q.

Even if West is allowed to play ♣K when he knows ♣Q is in partner's hands, South could also argue that he was damaged by East leading ♣Q out of turn, and that with a normal lead from West he can make 6♠.

[lamford]

Fluffy, on 2013-August-26, 06:54, said:

West might counter saying that south's failure to try for grand should mean that he hasn't got ♣Q.

Even if West is allowed to play ♣K when he knows ♣Q is in partner's hands, South could also argue that he was damaged by East leading ♣Q out of turn, and that with a normal lead from West he can make 6♠.

The first point is a good one, and one that has caused me to reconsider what the correct ruling is here. However, I don't think the second point is valid. Under which Law would you adjust for the LOOT gaining? It seems that you can adjust for knowledge of the MPC damaging the NOS, but you have already convinced me that the king of clubs is the correct play, so if West had led the queen of hearts normally, declarer would still reach the same ending, where exactly the same arguments would apply. Knowledge of the queen of clubs will be unauthorised regardless which option declarer chooses, under 16D2. We therefore poll several strong players and find out how many of them miss the crocodile to establish whether it is an LA to do so. The first three I tried all found it immediately.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-August-23, 02:52, said:

... if it was UI we adjust to what would have happened if he hadn't played the king.

On reflection I was wrong to upvote this. If it was UI we adjust to what would have happened if he hadn't played the king, only if there was an LA to playing the king.

[cloa513]

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. 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.

You mean exactly 2 spades- declarer cashed the spades- more than 2 would be a spoiled pack.

[lamford]

cloa513, on 2013-August-26, 17:14, said:

You mean exactly 2 spades- declarer cashed the spades- more than 2 would be a spoiled pack.

Yes, a typo sorry. Original corrected, and thanks for picking it up.

[gnasher]

Fluffy, on 2013-August-26, 06:54, said:

West might counter saying that south's failure to try for grand should mean that he hasn't got ♣Q.

Equally we could argue that South can't have his actual hand, because that would make his 4NT bid absurd.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-August-26, 16:42, said:

On reflection I was wrong to upvote this. If it was UI we adjust to what would have happened if he hadn't played the king, only if there was an LA to playing the king.

I was merely discussing the consequences of gnasher's claim that "without the infraction West would not have played the king", which is why I quoted it.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-August-27, 02:34, said:

I was merely discussing the consequences of gnasher's claim that "without the infraction West would not have played the king", which is why I quoted it.

I agreed with the part that if the MPC of the LOOT is AI you adjust to some percentage of playing the king; I think a weighted score is allowed, but I am happy to be corrected. I disagreed with your assertion that "if what West used was UI we adjust to what would have happened if he hadn't played the king." I think, post-Reveley, you decide whether there was an LA to playing the king, and if you decide there was, you give him 0% of playing the king. If you decide there was not, you give him 100% of playing the king.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-August-27, 00:39, said:

Equally we could argue that South can't have his actual hand, because that would make his 4NT bid absurd.

That depends on how much confidence South has in North. He would not want to bid 4D and hear a slow 4S from partner holding Qxxx xx Qxx AKQx or even Qxxx Qxx xx AKQx, unsure whether 4H is last train, reverse last train, or a cue-bid.

And I would not have much confidence in North. 7 losers and AKx in partner's shortage with a 4-3-3-3 hand and he shows extras with 3S? Many would have bid 4S instead. I surveyed a couple of strong players and they both bid RKCB on the South hand.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-August-27, 04:19, said:

I agreed with the part that if the LOOT is AI you adjust to some percentage of playing the king; I think a weighted score is allowed, but I am happy to be corrected. I disagreed with your assertion that "if what West used was UI we adjust to what would have happened if he hadn't played the king." I think, post-Reveley, you decide whether there was an LA to playing the king, and if you decide there was, you give him 0% of playing the king. If you decide there was not, you give him 100% of playing the king.

I agree with you. But I was taking for granted gnasher's assertion that he wouldn't have played the king without the infraction. In that case, either there is an LA to playing the king or there is sufficient AI to stop there being an LA, and in the latter case I would say that it is the AI which West has used.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-August-27, 04:59, said:

I agree with you. But I was taking for granted gnasher's assertion that he wouldn't have played the king without the infraction. In that case, either there is an LA to playing the king or there is sufficient AI to stop there being an LA, and in the latter case I would say that it is the AI which West has used.

OK; then we agree.