[pran]

Partner to a player having a major penalty card is allowed to "know" that the player
- has that particular card (as long as it remains a penalty card)
- must play this card at the first legal possibility
This includes that he is allowed to select which card in a suit with which he will follow to a trick from the knowledge that partner must play his penalty card in that same suit.

He is not allowed to select among alternative possible leads to a new trick one that could be suggested by the knowledge of
- the existence of that penalty card
- the circumstances why it became a penalty card
- the fact that he still has or has had that particular card (after it ceased to be a penalty card)

[Vampyr]

A lot of this discussion is about the difficulties present in Law 50. In the case at hand, I see no resolution other than a split score based on L82.

Also a seminar by a senior TD club member for inexperienced/uncertified directors in the club, and perhaps a reminder that book rulings are made with the book.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2015-May-13, 07:40, said:

My emphasis. Where do you find that in L82C?

treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose

[blackshoe]

It seems to me we have a tendency here to jump to the "interesting" part(s) of a case, skipping over the "uninteresting" stuff. However, at the table, the director, whether the one who made the original ruling or the later "helper", has to deal first with the "uninteresting". The "interesting" comes much later. So, step one, what does the director, whoever he is, rule at the table? At this point, South is on lead, and he has a penalty card on the table. The director previously ruled this a minor penalty card, but now realizes (or his helper realizes) that it should have been a major penalty card all along. So. "The three of hearts is a major penalty card, and should have been all along. Lead restrictions do not apply to minor penalty cards, but they do apply to major penalty cards, so the error in allowing lead restrictions against a minor penalty card is moot. At this time, South's ♥3 is a major penalty card, and South is on lead, so he must lead it. No further rectification applies at this time. Play on, and call me back after the play, at which time I will consider adjusting the score due to director error."

I'll deal with the "interesting" stuff later - I have to go play bridge now.

[axman]

 campboy, on 2015-May-13, 07:15, said:

No, I wouldn't. Recall that "damage" is defined in Law 12B1, and it is defined in terms of "the expectation had the infraction not occurred". So it is fine for NS to use AI to get back to the number of tricks they would have had without the infraction. Unless they actually gain from the exposed card, there is no damage.

Two notes.

1. At the time the TD was called, L57A operates.

2. As for the definition of damage, WBF2008 only specifies when damage exists but not what it is- as in damage exists when there is a green spot on a blue moon: we know at such time that damage exists, but not what it is.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2015-May-13, 07:59, said:

Partner to a player having a major penalty card is allowed to "know" that the player
- has that particular card (as long as it remains a penalty card)
- must play this card at the first legal possibility
This includes that he is allowed to select which card in a suit with which he will follow to a trick from the knowledge that partner must play his penalty card in that same suit.

He is not allowed to select among alternative possible leads to a new trick one that could be suggested by the knowledge of
- the existence of that penalty card
- the circumstances why it became a penalty card
- the fact that he still has or has had that particular card (after it ceased to be a penalty card)

I agree with the above, and the WBFLC minute is just wrong.

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2015-May-13, 08:03, said:

treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose

That doesn't mean "giving them both at least 60%". It means "resolving any doubtful points in each side's favour, by giving them split scores if necessary."

If you can tell exactly what would have happened without director error, and that would have resulted in one side getting a poor score, you don't give them 60% anyway!

[Aardv]

 lamford, on 2015-May-13, 08:15, said:

I agree with the above, and the WBFLC minute is just wrong.

That makes no sense to me, the WBFLC has the authority to issue guidance on interpretation of the Laws, so it can be wrong only if it directly contradicts them.

The intention of both the Law and the minute is plain to me: for the purpose of mitigating the effect of the penalty card, a player is allowed to know that his partner has the penalty card and must play it. For purposes of improving the defence otherwise, he's not allowed to know. For a small card, that usually means in effect that he's allowed to know his partner has the card. For an honour, some doublethink is required; hence the minute.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2015-May-13, 08:16, said:

That doesn't mean "giving them both at least 60%". It means "resolving any doubtful points in each side's favour, by giving them split scores if necessary."

If you can tell exactly what would have happened without director error, and that would have resulted in one side getting a poor score, you don't give them 60% anyway!

Are you able in a case like this to tell exactly what would have happened without director error?

I am not. First of all I do not for a moment believe that North would have led his ♦4 and then certainly not how the play would have developed.

So when applying

Law 82C said:

If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose.

we must realize that that there is no way we can award an assigned adjusted score giving proper justice to both sides, consequently the adjusted scores we award must be artificial.

And then

Law 12C2 said:

a. When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

b. [...]

c. The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant that obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in imps). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in imps) on the other boards of that session.

Note that

Law 12C1(d) said:

If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score.

I must add that I am surprised it should be necessary to go into such details in a forum like this?

[VixTD]

North made it very clear to me that he would not have led ♦4 had he been told South would have to discard ♥3 on it, so he suggested that they start that trick again and let him lead something else. That may have led to an equitable outcome, but I couldn't think of a law that allowed the last three cards played to be retracted. I instructed them to play on and told them they would be given an adjusted score if anyone had been damaged by the incorrect ruling.

I adjusted the score to 100% of 2♠(E)-1 to NS and 100% of 2♠(E)= to EW.

 gordontd, on 2015-May-13, 08:16, said:

That doesn't mean "giving them both at least 60%". It means "resolving any doubtful points in each side's favour, by giving them split scores if necessary."

I did think at the time that because EW are treated as non-offending I couldn't take away from them a score they obtained at the table, but I think that's making the same mistake as Pran.

[pran]

 VixTD, on 2015-May-13, 11:58, said:

North made it very clear to me that he would not have led ♦4 had he been told South would have to discard ♥3 on it, so he suggested that they start that trick again and let him lead something else. That may have led to an equitable outcome, but I couldn't think of a law that allowed the last three cards played to be retracted. I instructed them to play on and told them they would be given an adjusted score if anyone had been damaged by the incorrect ruling.

I adjusted the score to 100% of 2♠(E)-1 to NS and 100% of 2♠(E)= to EW.


I did think at the time that because EW are treated as non-offending I couldn't take away from them a score they obtained at the table, but I think that's making the same mistake as Pran.

What mistake?

[Trinidad]

 pran, on 2015-May-13, 12:41, said:

What mistake?

Suppose the entire EW field would be playing in 4♠, going down several tricks. Then NS at this table are going to get a zero and EW are going to get a top, irrespective of what the TD decided to rule (correctly or incorrectly). Yet, you give NS 60% and EW 60%. That is a mistake.

It may be difficult to come up with a non-artificial adjusted score, but it isn't impossible.

Rik

[pran]

 Trinidad, on 2015-May-13, 22:07, said:

Suppose the entire EW field would be playing in 4♠, going down several tricks. Then NS at this table are going to get a zero and EW are going to get a top, irrespective of what the TD decided to rule (correctly or incorrectly). Yet, you give NS 60% and EW 60%. That is a mistake.

It may be difficult to come up with a non-artificial adjusted score, but it isn't impossible.

Rik

Unless my memory fails me there is a rule that what might happen at other tables shall not influence the ruling on an irregularity.

In this case the Director's error is sufficiently severe to destroy any possibility of a normal result. The Director can of course try to "save his bacon" by imagining how the play should continue, but that is contrary to Law 82C. I see no mistake in awarding AVE+ to both sides.

Suppose that instead of the actual irregularity at this table there had been a fouled board (at this table only) and the Director judged that the foul had absolutely no impact on the result. Would you call it a mistake to use Law 87B and award AVE+ to both sides instead of finding that EW should keep their clean top and NS their clean bottom?

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2015-May-13, 08:08, said:

At this time, South's ♥3 is a major penalty card, and South is on lead, so he must lead it. No further rectification applies at this time.

But when East forbade a heart lead, the penalty card would have been picked up.

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2015-May-13, 11:11, said:

Are you able in a case like this to tell exactly what would have happened without director error?

Sometimes. Other times one might give a split or weighted ruling.

 pran, on 2015-May-13, 11:11, said:

I must add that I am surprised it should be necessary to go into such details in a forum like this?

There is some distance to go between acknowledging the general L12 guidance:

Quote

If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score.

and concluding, as you have, that whenever there is director error one must award an artificial adjusted score to both sides.

I'm surprised it's necessary to point this out.

[lamford]

 Aardv, on 2015-May-13, 09:29, said:

That makes no sense to me, the WBFLC has the authority to issue guidance on interpretation of the Laws, so it can be wrong only if it directly contradicts them.

In my opinion, and I think also dburn's from a previous posting, the WBFLC minute does directly contradict the law. But the Law also contradicts itself as WellSpyder pointed out. The partner of the person with a penalty card is both allowed to know that his partner has that card and is not allowed to know.

[lamford]

 VixTD, on 2015-May-13, 11:58, said:

I adjusted the score to 100% of 2♠(E)-1 to NS and 100% of 2♠(E)= to EW.

I think you were 100% correct.

[VixTD]

 VixTD, on 2015-May-13, 11:58, said:

I did think at the time that because EW are treated as non-offending I couldn't take away from them a score they obtained at the table, but I think that's making the same mistake as Pran.

This is hogwash, of course, even worse than what Pran said. If a side gain because of the director's error they should have that gain taken away and be given a likely favourable result.

 pran, on 2015-May-13, 23:40, said:

In this case the Director's error is sufficiently severe to destroy any possibility of a normal result.

I think the possible normal results are quite clear: declarer will make his contract unless the defence get their diamond ruff, in which case they'll be one off.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2015-May-14, 00:41, said:

But when East forbade a heart lead, the penalty card would have been picked up.

Ah, so it would. Okay, South can lead whatever he wants.

I may be running through this too quickly again (there's a tournament in town, and I don't want to be late) but it seems to me the actual outcome so far (♥3 PC, lead restrictions) is the same as it would have been had the PC been declared major rather than minor. So I'm not sure there's a problem at this point. I'll look again later when I have more time.

[dburn]

 lamford, on 2015-May-14, 06:01, said:

In my opinion, and I think also dburn's from a previous posting, the WBFLC minute does directly contradict the law. But the Law also contradicts itself as WellSpyder pointed out. The partner of the person with a penalty card is both allowed to know that his partner has that card and is not allowed to know.

The Law does not actually contradict itself - what is self-contradictory is the reading of the Law embodied in the WBFLC minute.

The Law says that knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players. This means that all players are allowed to know that a major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, that a minor penalty card need not be played before an honour card in the same suit, and so on. It does not mean - otherwise the Law really would be contradictory - that a player is allowed to know what partner's penalty card actually is until partner has played it.

So, even if you have no logical alternative to leading, say, a heart from ♥KQJx, you are still not allowed to lead low just because partner has ♥A as a penalty card (unless you would have no logical alternative to leading low if partner did not have a penalty card).

But the WBFLC does not believe its own rules, so has issued an absurd and self-contradictory minute. I look forward to the following Combination of the Month in a forthcoming Bridge World:

North
♠10843

South
♠9752

No trumps. North-South need one spade trick. East has ♠A as a major penalty card. West is on lead.