[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2023-January-30, 13:34, said:

Oh my - this law is often applied incorrectly.

What else is new? :-)

[mycroft]

As I said, we've had this discussion. (Everyone else can ignore the rest of this). A lot of what you say I agree with - to a point. But the "after thought" is - staggeringly disconnected from the rest of it.

Quote

A mPC by any name is an exposed card. When a card is played it is <drum roll> exposed.

I can ride a motorcycle. I can ride an elephant. They are not the same. When a card is dropped it is exposed. When a card is played it is exposed. But they are not the same either.

Even Wikipaedia states (my emphasis, obviously):

Quote

Communication is usually defined as the transmission of information...There are some disagreements about the precise definition of communication, for example, whether unintentional or failed transmissions are also included...

Some theorists give very broad definitions of communication that encompass unconscious...behavior. Other researchers restrict communication to conscious interactions among human beings...Various characterizations see the communicator's intent to send a message as a central component. On this view, the transmission of information is not sufficient for communication if it happens unintentionally.

I agree, a dropped card transmits information. I do not agree that it is communication. I also do not agree that all communication carries the same weight, and should be treated as "a turn".

The Laws take both "significance of information" and "intent to communicate" into account, and the Lawmakers have decided that:

• knowledge only of the location of one small card in a suit is information of minimal significance (and they have decided that a good place to draw the line is between 9 and 10);
  
• something done without intent should not in and of itself be subject to a penalty (here, I am meaning "some major detriment to the infracting side", not the legal meaning of penalty vs rectification); but
  
• a card exposed intentionally, even a small card, does in fact pass enough information that, to be fair, we need to majorly restrict action. I mean, "leads and signals, opps?", this should be unanimous.

The first also applies during the auction - if a single small card is exposed accidentally, nothing happens except that it remains face-up during the auction (and becomes a minor PC if on defence), but if multiple cards, or an honour are exposed, or if the card was exposed with intent, then there is consequence (partner must pass once) - see Law 24.

The second also applies in other places - if it's all communication, then we should repeal L25A and go with "a card pulled out of the box is made, no matter what"; and L45C4b, I guess. Is a violation of L45D "communication" that should be handled just as strongly as L43A1c? Also, since intent doesn't matter, then neither should whether the information passed by the communication is useful to partner - so declarer should get penalty cards (and their penalties) too?

As for the third, as I said, I can't imagine anyone arguing that the information passed by a deliberate lead or signal isn't significant enough to require some sort of balance.

Even if we go with the "unintentional, or unconscious" transmission of information is communication definition, the fact is that the *amount* of information passed by the accidental drop of the ♠4 pales in comparison to that passed by the deliberate *play* of the ♠4. Or, given the givens, that passed by the accidental drop of the ♠Q. Just because both are "communication" doesn't mean that the two cases need, or should, be treated equally. I mean, after all, "no questions, partner" or even "hi ppps, this is Katie" are also communication (and by the strict reading of the law, not legal). Clearly that must also be punished by a required pass by partner at their first opportunity, or, in the play, by forcing or forbidding the lead of any one suit.

[mycroft]

jillybean, on 2023-January-31, 10:41, said:

Ok, and this is why when I said I can't remember defender being told they have the option of playing the minor penalty card or a honor of the same suit it's most likely the card was a major penalty and not a Director error. I will pay more attention in future.

I wasn't intending to imply that this was the case in your telling - but as I said, it frequently is.

Quote

When a player has a Major PC on the table and their partner is on lead, declarer may forbid or demand the lead of that suit.
If declarer exercises this right, the card is picked up and no is longer a PC

Yes.

Quote

(it remains UI to partner)

Well, it (and the information derived from why it was exposed) becomes UI. When it's on the table, it's AI. Yes, it's confusing.

Quote

Minor penalty cards have no lead restrictions

Correct.

I'm not going to quote the "2 penalty card" queries, because it's just easier to explain (frankly, it's just easier to RTFLB, but still). I will *strongly advise* that the director with the Law book be there if this happens, because it doesn't happen often enough for anybody to get it right without help (for bridge versions of "nobody").

• If one player has two penalty cards that are possible to be played (not led) to a trick, declarer chooses which PC is played. This can happen following suit with multiple PCs in the same suit, or when unable to follow suit with multiple PCs in the same or different suits.
  
• If one player is on lead with multiple penalty cards, as above declarer chooses which one is led.
  
• If one player has multiple penalty cards and their partner is on lead, then declarer can choose to require the lead of one of the PC's suits, or forbid the lead of one or more of the suits, or neither. *All* PCs in the suit or suits mentioned by declarer (require or forbid) are picked up. All other PCs remain MPCs. If declarer chooses not to require or forbid, all the PCs remain on the table and the other defender leads what they wish.
  
• If both defenders have a MPC, then if one of them gets on lead:
  • Declarer can require or forbid the lead of the suit of leader's partner's MPC. That card is picked up. If declarer forbids LHO's suit, and RHO's MPC isn't in that suit, then that's the lead (why declarer would do that eludes me because of the next bit, but that's what happens).
    
  • Declarer can choose not to. Leader must lead their MPC ("first legal opportunity").
• If both defenders have a MPC and one has more than one, then the relevant bits of all the above apply in the obvious manner.

I think that's all the cases? Read Laws 50-52 for the grotty details.

[jillybean]

Thanks , I have read the laws but you and others often do a better job of explaining and bring attention to other relevant laws that I've overlooked, or been too lazy to read on.

Playing a NT contract today, LHO played 9♣ on my ♠ lead and then corrected to a spade, leaving club card on table. We agreed it was a penalty card.

RHO gained the lead and led 6 hearts as I was calling the director. 😩

Director gave me lead options, (without first establishing if 1st PC was minor or major but perhaps both are MPC when both defenders have PC) I exercised my right to lead restrictions,requiring a club lead. Director did not advise opps to pickup any cards.

I got a good board, assisted by the infractions, opps had some nasty things to say after Director left the table.

[sfi]

The C9 was a major penalty card because it was deliberately played, so the table was right about that. Both players can have a minor penalty card, but there are none involved in this scenario.

Once RHO led the H6 without waiting, it becomes a penalty card as well. You still get all your normal options for RHO, but if they can lead the H6 after you go through the options, they are required to do so. If not, it sits on the table waiting to be played at the next legal opportunity. This also means that you have the same options if LHO wins a trick while it is sitting there.

And yes, the director should have told your LHO to pick up the C9 once you required a club lead. The H6 stays as a major penalty card.


There is another consideration in the lead restrictions. Go back to where your RHO has the lead and LHO has the C9 penalty card. Now assume you choose the option to let RHO lead whatever they like and keep the C9 as a penalty card. They lead and win the SA. They're still on lead with partner having a penalty card - you can now choose a different option even though they haven't lost the lead. Sometimes it's right to make a different choice at the second trick, and the director should make sure you know you have the option to do so.

[mycroft]

Thank you sfi, that's a reminder I need to be more careful to do. Thinking of my last few of these, I may not have made that clear.

Note that the last paragraph obviously is "assume the director was called before the ♥6 hit the table." because if RHO "can lead what they like" and they have a MPC, that's what they're leading.

But all this complication - and the director maybe not getting it perfectly right, whether she'd get the simple one right - is why "when attention has been drawn to an irregularity [in this case, when the revoke was noticed and corrected], the director should be summoned." If RHO knows their obligations if put on lead, they may play differently (to avoid being on lead until the MPC gets played, for instance), and they certainly won't lead before the director allows declarer to select their option. At least, one fewer MPC on the table; at best, all players are able to use all their bridge skill to play the hand.

But also: (and note that this should only apply if there is serious discrepancy in knowledge or experience, or any hint of "if they don't know how this works, I might get an advantage", but) see the previous discussions over the preliminary sentence of Law 50: "a card...exposed...by defender...is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise". And having had all this explanation, jillybean, you now have "a serious discrepancy in knowledge" over many of the fellow players in the club. You, like I, now have a positive duty to ensure these "little surprises" don't happen to your advantage (or you might get a "little surprise" of your own). And while it is not required to point out an irregularity made by your own side, "not bothering to mention" that your side is under lead restrictions when your side has a MPC and partner is on lead - when you know that to be the case, and wouldn't be surprised if declarer doesn't - is ethically dubious at best.

[jillybean]

Very good comments, thanks.

The ethical aspect in regards to the laws is interesting and something I always have in mind.

The overwhelming attitude is that calling the Director is embarrassing, not a "kind" action and as one of my opponents commented yesterday, "I'm surprised at you for creating all that kerfuffle". However I'm getting way off topic here.



"I promise that I will do my best, to be true to myself and develop my beliefs, to serve the King Bridge Club and my community, to help other people and to keep the Guide Laws of DCB."

[sfi]

mycroft, on 2023-February-01, 10:37, said:

Note that the last paragraph obviously is "assume the director was called before the ♥6 hit the table." because if RHO "can lead what they like" and they have a MPC, that's what they're leading.

Yes - my last paragraph was assuming no second penalty card and a director at the table to walk the players through the situation. And the rest of your comment was spot on as well.

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2023-February-01, 13:41, said:

The overwhelming attitude is that calling the Director is embarrassing, not a "kind" action and as one of my opponents commented yesterday, "I'm surprised at you for creating all that kerfuffle".

I know how I would respond to that comment, but I can't repeat it here.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-February-01, 13:41, said:

The ethical aspect in regards to the laws is interesting and something I always have in mind.

The overwhelming attitude is that calling the Director is embarrassing, not a "kind" action and as one of my opponents commented yesterday, "I'm surprised at you for creating all that kerfuffle". However I'm getting way off topic here.

Pep Guardiola, soccer coach, on 2023-February-01, 13:41, said:

I love golf for many reasons. For the environment, the courses you play on. There are no referees there. The rules are for everybody. So when our games are being influenced by the decision of the referee, it is too much. In good ways and bad ways.

Golf (which has the same problem as bridge of not allowing a single referee to monitor all action in real time) is often cited as one of the most ethical sports. It certainly does better than bridge, but I was perplexed by the reasoning of Guardiola, often repeated since 2017. Of course the decision of a referee will influence a game. "I'm good and I can win in lots of ways, referees should know that and the last thing I want is one messing with me" comes to mind, thinking about a lot of bridge players too.

[sanst]

Maybe a bit OT, but has anyone tried to explain Law 50E to the players? I did, but nobody really understood why the information is AI as long as the PC is open on the table, but becomes UI when the card is returned to the hand. To add to the confusion there’s 50E4 which obliges the TD to examine whether the information from the PC, although AI, has influenced the outcome of the play. The “If you think that defenders choose a line of play that they wouldn’t have chosen without the knowledge of the PC and that gained them an advantage, you should call me again” leaves almost everyone in total confusion.
What’s also confusing, is that the Laws are unclear about when a mPC should or can be played. If a card of the suit of the PC is played, it should be the PC or a honour of that suit. That the partner has no lead restrictions, is made explicitly clear, but whether the player with the PC can play whatever card he chooses or not, I can’t deduct from the Laws.

[blackshoe]

50E is complicated. I would try this: if there is a major or minor penalty card (MPC or mPC) on the table, it is there because it was exposed unintentionally and is not an honor (mPC) or it was exposed intentionally or is an honor (MPC) or the player has more than one penalty card (all Major). While it is there everyone at the table is allowed to know that it's there (because they can see it) and what the laws are regarding when it must be played (because they're the rules). If the card is picked up (it would have to be a MPC) the fact that the player has that card is UI to his partner because the partner would not ordinarily know that the player has that card.

If a player has a minor penalty card, and someone else leads that suit*, the player with the mPC must either play the penalty card or play an honor (A, K, Q, J, or 10) in the suit. If another suit is led, the player with the mPC must of course follow suit if he can. If he cannot follow suit, he can play anything he likes**, because Law 50C ("Disposition of Minor Penalty Card") does not require him to play the mPC at the first opportunity (so don't confuse the mPC situation with the MPC situation of Law 50D1{a}, which requires the MPC to be played at the first legal opportunity in most cases).

If a player with a mPC is on lead, he can lead any suit he likes. If he leads the suit of his mPC, he must lead either the PC or an honor.

*Note that if the partner of the player with the mPC is on lead, there are no lead restrictions.

**If the player chooses to discard from the suit of his mPC, he must play either the mPC or an honor of that suit.

[mycroft]

The only criticism I would make of the explanation there is that 50E1 not only covers the card's existence, and "the requirements for playing", it also allows for "information *derived* from the" card (my emphasis) while it's on the table.

So I am allowed to know when the ♠K is OLooT'ed that partner has the A or Q as well as "if I lead a spade, partner's playing the K" and "if declarer gets in and pulls trump, his first discard is the ♠K". I'm allowed to know from the (odd/even) ♥5 pitched one trick too early on the run of the clubs that he wants a heart switch, when I win the jack (of course, declarer knows that too, and will bar the heart lead. Then it goes back into partner's hand, and I am no longer allowed to know that until he plays it on the next club. But I am allowed to know that declarer barred a heart lead, so if I get in again, even without the signal, it's AI that declarer doesn't want a heart - even if it's unauthorized that partner *does*.)

Pre-2017, the rules were (almost) as you stated - "you're allowed to know he has to play this at his first opportunity, including if on lead, and if you get on lead, declarer will have options. But you are not allowed to know that partner has, or wanted to play, that card." That made no sense to anybody, and even if it did, nobody followed it. The new 50E at least attempts to make what everybody did legal (while taking any advantage from "I got to signal before I would legally be able to, and partner wouldn't have defended correctly without the information" away. Assuming the director knows the Law and knows how to apply it, and has the bridge ability to realize that it did, in fact, change the play, of course.

However, at the table I wouldn't go into all of that. "card is ... and the player must ... and if partner gets on lead, declarer will have options in the ... suit. Everyone *is allowed* to know that card is there, and can use any information they can work out from the player wishing to play it, until it is no longer a penalty card." Or I would skip that last bit, and when the card is resolved (played or put back in hand), *then* explain that the information is now UI to partner.

Of course, that requires me to stay at the table until the PC is resolved. Which, if the point of explaining 50E4 to the players is to allow the playing director to get back to his game, is a bad point. Frankly, 50E4, along with the other "Law 16-alikes", aren't Laws that *need to be* explained to the players, except in the rare case where the director has to change the table result because of them.

For the players who freak out about "but it's not FAIIIIR" that whatever isn't UI, I will go with "by Law, it is allowed without issue. But you will be protected in case they get a result better than what they could get without [IB/revoke/comparable call...]." Which is true. Sure, it's not FAIIIIIR that "they did something wrong, and we don't get a good score", but "they did something wrong, and we got the score we would have if they hadn't" is acceptable to the Lawmakers.