[lamford]

---

Butler IMPs

The above auction was almost universal in this hand from the North London teams last night, although a couple of timid Souths chose 4♦ at their first turn, which ended the auction and scored +130. At all but two tables the lead against 3NT was the queen of spades, and declarer cashed his nine tricks and played a club, eventually scoring +660. When the rabbit was East, he led his partner's suit and the TD was called. None of the options for South, SB, were of any use of course, as RR's guardian angel had decreed. Declarer did his best by preventing a spade lead, but there were only eight tricks. SB wanted a Law 72C adjustment of course.

At the other table where the chimp was East, it is alleged, but unproven, that he noticed his tell-tale two of spades and also led it out of turn, at the speed of light. MM, South had hummed and harred before bidding 3NT, and the Chimp suspected a singleton king of spades. According to SB, asked his opinion by OO, but vehemently denied by ChCh, he knew that he if he led the deuce, his partner would know that he had only one spade, as the pair led high from a doubleton and middle from three, and would not now be tempted into a pointless underlead of the ace of spades, which might give declarer his ninth trick, not to mention overtricks. Again none of the LOOT options presented to South, MM, were any more use than a chocolate teapot, and the contract was again one off.

How do you rule at both tables? Do you decide that RR could not have been aware but ChCh could have been?

[Cyberyeti]

This was basically the point I was making in the previous thread that I've seen this happen in not quite such blatant fashion.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-October-02, 07:32, said:

This was basically the point I was making in the previous thread that I've seen this happen in not quite such blatant fashion.

A truly remarkable coincidence that this should have occurred last night ... But we still have to rule on it.

[weejonnie]

Couldn't declarer have left the 2 of spades on the table - and then sought rectification under 50E4? Given the results elsewhere I would be sympathetic.

Regrettably under the rules discussed (72C) and on this forum I have to agree to rule against both RR and ChCh, since there is always going to be some possibility. (If I can't rule against RR I will certainly rule against his Guardian Angel - this definitely comes under 16D.)

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-October-02, 07:45, said:

Couldn't declarer have left the 2 of spades on the table - and then sought rectification under 50E4? Given the results elsewhere I would be sympathetic.

The problem is that West can lead the jack of hearts, as the two of spades is now AI to him while it is on the table. He then quotes 10B4:
"Subject to Law 16C2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even
though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 72C)."

So, I think the only way to get the rabbit or chimp is under 72C, and I agree with you that we do that for both of them.

Another law change which is possible and logical is to merge 27D and 12B1 into a new 12B1:
12B. Non-offending Side Damaged
If following the application of any law the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged, he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid infraction not occurred.

Why, oh why, does this only apply to insufficient bids and not to other infractions?

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-October-02, 07:45, said:

If I can't rule against RR I will certainly rule against his Guardian Angel - this definitely comes under 16D,

I think the fact that he has a Guardian Angel is authorised to RR as it was information he possessed before he took his cards from the board ... and he is therefore allowed to do anything as crass as he wishes.

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2018-October-02, 08:11, said:

The problem is that West can lead the jack of hearts, as the two of spades is now AI to him while it is on the table. He then quotes 10B4:
"Subject to Law 16C2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even
though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 72C)."

So, I think the only way to get the rabbit or chimp is under 72C, and I agree with you that we do that for both of them.

Another law change which is possible and logical is to merge 27D and 12B1 into a new 12B1:
12B. Non-offending Side Damaged
If following the application of any law the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged, he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid infraction not occurred.

Why, oh why, does this only apply to insufficient bids and not to other infractions?

Law 50E is close

4. 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).

Note that this is still part of the rectification so 10B4 doesn't apply.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-October-02, 08:30, said:

Law 50E is close

4. 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).

Note that this is still part of the rectification so 10B4 doesn't apply.

On that basis, declarer gets two bites at the cherry after all LOOTs, certainly if he leaves it there as a penalty card. If the OS gain, the TD adjusts because without the assistance of the exposed card the outcome of the board could well have been different. If the OS lose or break even, then the declarer is happy anyway.

Come to think of it, the LOOT always creates an exposed card, and the fact that this card would have been led had the person been on lead always assists the non-offending side, whichever option is chosen, as it eliminates certain hands. If the outcome of the board could well have been different, the TD adjusts to what would have happened without the LOOT. In other words all LOOTs that gain are adjusted.

[barmar]

I don't know how to prove it, but if the Chimp really did what's alleged, it's a blatant violation of 72B1

Quote

A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is
willing to accept.

If the TD really thinks this is what he did, a PP and/or DP would be appropriate, and perhaps even reporting him to higher authorities for organizational discipline.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-October-02, 09:04, said:

I don't know how to prove it, but if the Chimp really did what's alleged, it's a blatant violation of 72B1


If the TD really thinks this is what he did, a PP and/or DP would be appropriate, and perhaps even reporting him to higher authorities for organizational discipline.

From the OP: "According to SB, asked his opinion by OO, but vehemently denied by ChCh". As the chimp said in the bar afterwards with a mocking grin, "Prove it".

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2018-October-02, 09:08, said:

From the OP: "According to SB, asked his opinion by OO, but vehemently denied by ChCh". As the chimp said in the bar afterwards with a mocking grin, "Prove it".

https://www.youtube....h?v=0VHWseHS_OE

"I don't need to prove it beyond my own satisfaction and possibly that of the appeals committee"

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2018-October-02, 07:19, said:

None of the options for South, SB, were of any use of course, as RR's guardian angel had decreed. Declarer did his best by preventing a spade lead...

Did he? Why not insist on a spade lead. ♠2 is picked up and UI to West (law 50E2), so West has to lead ♠Q if it is a logical alternative over which ♠A is suggested.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2018-October-03, 06:28, said:

Did he? Why not insist on a spade lead. ♠2 is picked up and UI to West (law 50E2), so West has to lead ♠Q if it is a logical alternative over which ♠A is suggested.

From South's point of view, the lead could easily be from ♠Jxx or ♠Txx in which case insisting on a spade lead would be ridiculous, as West will cash the ace. The only reason that West might be forced to lead the queen is because he is looking at AQJT. I don't think you fail to adjust because declarer was not psychic.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2018-October-03, 11:41, said:

From South's point of view, the lead could easily be from ♠Jxx or ♠Txx in which case insisting on a spade lead would be ridiculous, as West will cash the ace. The only reason that West might be forced to lead the queen is because he is looking at AQJT. I don't think you fail to adjust because declarer was not psychic.

Is there not an obligation on ES to disclose their agreements about a lead of 2?
If it could come from Jxx or Txx then I don't see what we are talking about here.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2018-October-03, 11:59, said:

Is there not an obligation on ES to disclose their agreements about a lead of 2?
If it could come from Jxx or Txx then I don't see what we are talking about here.

They were playing standard leads, and had a completed CC. High from a doubleton, middle of three, low from Hxx. From declarer's point of view, it was a godsend, in that he could prevent a spade lead and would make whenever his partner had the ace of clubs, and often when he had other cards such as the king of hearts. And East is pretty sure that this is the option declarer will pick. The danger situation, from East's point of view, is when his partner has AQJxxxx and is tempted to underlead the ace of spades, when the defence will probably make no spade trick at all. Vital to get that two of spades on the table as quickly as possible ... accidentally of course.