[blml] Turn but a stone

[Steve Willner]

[defender drops a card before his partner has played]
As I recall, I asked this very question many years ago -- in particular, 
before 1997.  In those days, there was no satisfactory answer.  Now 
there is: L72B1 seems exactly on point.  Of course we all want to rule 
against the villain who solves partner's problem via an infraction, but 
let's use the correct law to do it, not torture the UI rules out of all 
recognition.

>        The minute reads:
>        "The committee considered the question of
> information arising from possession of a penalty 
> card. Information that the player must play the 
> penalty card as the law requires is authorised and 
> partner may choose the card to lead from the suit 
> on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may lead small 
> from KQJx when partner's penalty card is the Ace).

This seems perfectly clear.  It is AI to the player in second seat that 
if he discards, partner's card will win the trick.  So use a different law.

> Information based on sight of partner's penalty card 
> is unauthorized so that, for example, the player may 
> not choose to lead the suit if the suit is suggested by 
> the penalty card and play of a different suit is a 
> logical alternative". 

Many of us wrote at the time that this part of the minute was very hard 
to understand.  Of course the real problem -- and you've heard this 
before -- is the attempt to mix mechanical and UI penalties.  Either one 
would be OK, but the mixture is very hard to apply.