[pran]

 lamford, on 2015-July-16, 03:34, said:

Assuming the White Book quotes the minute correctly (I do not have the original), you are missing an important corollary, Pran:

A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this card and information that the player has the card. Initially the underlead from KQJx to partner’s Ax is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3 applies.

If a player benefits from underleading the KQJ, as in this example, whether by accident or design, then the TD should award an adjusted score. Effectively one cannot gain from the underlead as opposed to the lead of the king. I think there is a separate breach of Law 16, but all roads lead to Rome.

The minute continues:
The player must convince the Director that he has not gained from the information that the player possesses the card.

In this example, West would not be able to so convince the Director. I do not think campboy is correct that the test is whether the player gained from the original infraction. It is whether he gained from the knowledge that his partner possesses the card that matters.

Let us agree that we disagree.
I don't have the WBFLC minute at hand, but the way I remember it (together with the discussion and reasoning) a defender who realises that his partner must play a particular (penalty) card to a suit may freely use that knowledge when selecting which card in the suit he will lead or play (as the case might be) from his own hand.

It was particularly mentioned that he needs not lead or play a King only to see it "killed" by his partner's Ace, or his Ace to see it "killing" his partner's King in situations where such plays would otherwise be "normal".

[WellSpyder]

I know we have discussed this aspect of the laws before, but it does seem to be a genuinely difficult area. However, it seems completely obvious to me that the whole concept of how the game is supposed to work in a fair way requires it to be impossible for West to lead ♣2 in this example and to gain thereby, without some offsetting adjustment to the score afterwards. I don't understand why anybody would want to support an interpretation of the law that allows that to happen if there is any possibility of interpreting it differently.

[Cascade]

 lamford, on 2015-July-16, 03:34, said:

Assuming the White Book quotes the minute correctly (I do not have the original)

This is what the minutes say:

Law 50E ‐ Mr. Di Sacco asks that examples be provided of the application of this law.  
A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this
card and information that the player has the card. Initially the underlead from K Q J x
to partner’s A x is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3
applies.  
Mr.Bavin observes that the player must convince the Director that he has not gained
from the information that the player possesses the card. This continues the WBF Laws
Committee decision made in previous years.  

The document is here

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2015-July-16, 03:34, said:

A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this card and information that the player has the card. Initially the underlead from KQJx to partner’s Ax is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3 applies.

This seems to me even worse: it tells us we're allowed to do something, but if we do and gain from it we can be adjusted against! What kind of permission is that? However, following sensible objections to these minutes by David Burn in earlier threads I'm hoping it will be looked at again before the next law book.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2015-July-16, 04:17, said:

This seems to me even worse: it tells us we're allowed to do something, but if we do and gain from it we can be adjusted against! What kind of permission is that? However, following sensible objections to these minutes by David Burn in earlier threads I'm hoping it will be looked at again before the next law book.

Also remember that if Declarer uses his option to request a lead in the suit of the penalty card then the penalty card is restored to the offender's hand and the knowledge that the offender holds this card is now definitely UI to his partner.

Consequently a lead of x from KQJx will then almost always be ruled illegal (based on UI) when the exposed card is no longer a penalty card at the time of the lead!

I find it fair for both sides to use Law 50E on the choice of suit to lead but hardly on the choice of which card in that suit to lead in situations like OP.

[StevenG]

 pran, on 2015-July-16, 05:43, said:

I find it fair for both sides to use Law 50E on the choice of suit to lead but hardly on the choice of which card in that suit to lead in situations like OP.

Quote

If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side he shall award an adjusted score.

In this particular case, the lead of the King allows the contract to make by force. The lead of the two allows the contract to be defeated by force. Had East exposed the six, the lead would have been the King, so it is clear that the exposed card did convey such information as to damage the non-offending side.

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2015-July-16, 04:17, said:

This seems to me even worse: it tells us we're allowed to do something, but if we do and gain from it we can be adjusted against! What kind of permission is that? However, following sensible objections to these minutes by David Burn in earlier threads I'm hoping it will be looked at again before the next law book.

It was a direct quote from the White Book, and I agree it is ludicrous. Perhaps there should be another "clarification" from the WBFLC; and perhaps the White Book should clarify the EBU interpretation.

[pran]

 StevenG, on 2015-July-16, 06:00, said:

In this particular case, the lead of the King allows the contract to make by force. The lead of the two allows the contract to be defeated by force. Had East exposed the six, the lead would have been the King, so it is clear that the exposed card did convey such information as to damage the non-offending side.

And if Declarer had demanded a Club lead from West instead of letting the ♣Ace remain a penalty card he would have secured the contract "by force".

Are you quite sure you don't give Declarer a double shot here? My feeling is that this is a question about "rub of the green".

[StevenG]

 pran, on 2015-July-16, 08:14, said:

And if Declarer had demanded a Club lead from West instead of letting the ♣Ace remain a penalty card he would have secured the contract "by force".

Are you quite sure you don't give Declarer a double shot here? My feeling is that this is a question about "rub of the green".

I don't see how declarer making the wrong guess after an infraction, without knowing how the cards lie, nullifies the provisions of L50E3.

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2015-July-16, 04:17, said:

This seems to me even worse: it tells us we're allowed to do something, but if we do and gain from it we can be adjusted against! What kind of permission is that?

I think they're just trying to make the most sensible interpretation of a broken law.

Players aren't generally supposed to be able to take advantage of their own side's infractions. They're allowed to get lucky, that's rub of the green (e.g. if you bar partner, and when you guess the contract it turns out that it's better than the one you would have reached by a normal auction), but they shouldn't be able to use it gain deliberately. Leading low from KQJx is the most obvious example of that. They just couldn't imagine that the lawmakers really intended to condone this when they wrote the law about what is AI and UI w/r/t the exposed penalty card.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2015-July-16, 08:43, said:

....but they shouldn't be able to use it gain deliberately. Leading low from KQJx is the most obvious example of that. They just couldn't imagine that the lawmakers really intended to condone this when they wrote the law about what is AI and UI w/r/t the exposed penalty card.

Agree. It would be nice if an official change or clarification (WBF minute?) were forthcoming. So far, the attempts at dealing with this particular issue have been as cloudy as the law itself.

[campboy]

 barmar, on 2015-July-16, 08:43, said:

Players aren't generally supposed to be able to take advantage of their own side's infractions. They're allowed to get lucky, that's rub of the green (e.g. if you bar partner, and when you guess the contract it turns out that it's better than the one you would have reached by a normal auction), but they shouldn't be able to use it gain deliberately. Leading low from KQJx is the most obvious example of that. They just couldn't imagine that the lawmakers really intended to condone this when they wrote the law about what is AI and UI w/r/t the exposed penalty card.

If you lead low here, you're not trying to gain from your side's infraction. You're merely trying to avoid losing out by ridiculously crashing honours. And that is exactly the sort of thing the lawmakers do intend to be permitted.

It's really just like the partner has to pass case. You don't have to make a conventional bid when you know partner will be forced to pass it; you don't have to play a high card when you know partner will be forced to play high too. The only difference is that the law is already harsher on penalty cards -- if you happen to gain by some fluke (or carefully constructed hand, as the case may be) you always get an adjusted score; there is no "could have known" test. I don't understand why some people want it to be even harsher.

[aguahombre]

 campboy, on 2015-July-16, 10:41, said:

If you lead low here, you're not trying to gain from your side's infraction. You're merely trying to avoid losing out by ridiculously crashing honours. And that is exactly the sort of thing the lawmakers do intend to be permitted.

Whether trying to gain or not, you are gaining by your side's infraction; there was nothing ridiculous about leading the King of Clubs at trick one here. The ridiculous lead of a low one without the information is what the lawmakers should not intend to be permitted.

[pran]

 campboy, on 2015-July-16, 10:41, said:

If you lead low here, you're not trying to gain from your side's infraction. You're merely trying to avoid losing out by ridiculously crashing honours. And that is exactly the sort of thing the lawmakers do intend to be permitted.

It's really just like the partner has to pass case. You don't have to make a conventional bid when you know partner will be forced to pass it; you don't have to play a high card when you know partner will be forced to play high too. The only difference is that the law is already harsher on penalty cards -- if you happen to gain by some fluke (or carefully constructed hand, as the case may be) you always get an adjusted score; there is no "could have known" test. I don't understand why some people want it to be even harsher.

 aguahombre, on 2015-July-16, 11:03, said:

Whether trying to gain or not, you are gaining by your side's infraction; there was nothing ridiculous about leading the King of Clubs at trick one here. The ridiculous lead of a low one without the information is what the lawmakers should not intend to be permitted.

Well, at least campboy understands my point.

No, there was nothing ridiculous about leading the King of Clubs at trick one here so long as East had not exposed his Ace.
But it is certainly ridiculous to lead the King when West knows that East is forced to play his Ace to that same trick.

The relevant UI discussion should be if leading a(ny) club could be suggested by the OLOOT from East, and whether West has any logical alternative to leading a Club once East has shown his desire to attack the Club suit with his Ace.

And don't forget that Declarer did not execute his option (Law 50D2) to require* the defender to lead the suit of the penalty card, or to prohibit* him from leading that suit for as long as he retains the lead

[lamford]

 pran, on 2015-July-16, 11:27, said:

Well, at least campboy understands my point.

No, there was nothing ridiculous about leading the King of Clubs at trick one here so long as East had not exposed his Ace.
But it is certainly ridiculous to lead the King when West knows that East is forced to play his Ace to that same trick.

The relevant UI discussion should be if leading a(ny) club could be suggested by the OLOOT from East and whether West has any logical alternative to leading a Club once East has shown his desire to attack the Club suit with his Ace.

It was not an opening lead out of turn; it was a card exposed during the auction. It did not show any desire to attack clubs or not. If there were no penalty card, then the lead would automatically have been the king of clubs. It is ridiculous to change this lead to the two of clubs because of knowledge of the rank and suit of the penalty card. Had the secretary bird not been present, West would have got away with it, as the TD would not have known to adjust. And if Pran had been TD, he would have refused to adjust.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2015-July-16, 11:33, said:

It was not an opening lead out of turn; it was a card exposed during the auction. It did not show any desire to attack clubs or not. If there were no penalty card, then the lead would automatically have been the king of clubs. It is ridiculous to change this lead to the two of clubs because of knowledge of the rank and suit of the penalty card. Had the secretary bird not been present, West would have got away with it, as the TD would not have known to adjust.

Sorry, my error.
But the key point is that it was a major penalty card, not so clearly suggesting an attack in clubs.

But to the core of this "problem" I challenge you to rule if West had made his opening lead in any of the suits other than Clubs and with that lead set the contract.

Do you still adjust on the ground that any lead other than the ♣K is suggested by UI?

Edit:
I had to go back and found:

StevenG said:

Double dummy, the lead of a high club or the J♥ gives 9 tricks, all other leads give 8.

[jallerton]

 Cascade, on 2015-July-16, 04:10, said:

This is what the minutes say:

I would suggest that one of the words in the minute needs to be changed:

Quote

Law 50E ‐ Mr. Di Sacco asks that examples be provided of the application of this law.  
A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this
card and information that the player has the card. Initially the underlead from K Q J x
to partner’s A x is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3
applies.  
Mr.Bavin observes that the player must convince the Director that he has not gained
from the information that the player possesses the card. This continues the WBF Laws
Committee decision ambiguity made in previous years.  

[barmar]

 campboy, on 2015-July-16, 10:41, said:

It's really just like the partner has to pass case. You don't have to make a conventional bid when you know partner will be forced to pass it; you don't have to play a high card when you know partner will be forced to play high too.

The difference is that barring partner is already a pretty harsh penalty. You have to make a total guess as to the final contract, so they don't compound it by forcing you to bid within your system.

[Cascade]

 barmar, on 2015-July-16, 14:01, said:

The difference is that barring partner is already a pretty harsh penalty. You have to make a total guess as to the final contract, so they don't compound it by forcing you to bid within your system.

Disagree. In that the lead penalties are also pretty harsh. Declarer can prohibit, demand or allow free choice with a penalty card. This choice is harsh on the defense.

[aguahombre]

 Cascade, on 2015-July-16, 14:37, said:

Disagree. In that the lead penalties are also pretty harsh. Declarer can prohibit, demand or allow free choice with a penalty card. This choice is harsh on the defense.

I fail to see the link between the harshness of Declarer's choices and the inequity of allowing a low Club lead with the EI that partner has the club Ace. Whatever Declarer chooses cannot overcome the damage from that knowledge.