Bob Dancer wrote:
Harry wrote:
Bottom line: "This hold is worth less because I discard cards that
could otherwise have completed a winning hand in combination with
the held cards, but which now won't be available."
Although this seems clear enough, there are penalty cards THAT ARE
NOT DISCARDED --- such as in 10/7 DB where from 'K93'Q4, the 9 is a
straight penalty to the KQ, which requires that you HOLD 'K93'. Any
definition that includes a "discarded" proviso is incorrect. This is
one distinguishing characteristic between "normal" penalty cards and
"power of the pack" situations. The relevant cards in a "power of the
pack" situation MUST BE DISCARDED.
Well, we likely agree that we're disputing semantics -- we both know
and agree on what a penalty card is. (Ok, so I write that more as a
defense to my own competency than yours, Bob 
There's not much
worth discussing further. But, let me offer up as explanation that I
don't find my words at odds with yours.
I think of penalty cards in the context of POTENTIAL holds. You may
or may not actually elect to go with the hold under consideration,
therefore you may or may not discard the related penalty cards.
In your 10/7 DB example, the "9" is specifically identified as a
penalty card in this hand under my offered definition ... it's a
penalty to KQ, should you hold it. As you note, it weakens the value
of KQ sufficiently that it's not the optimal hold (and therefore, you
don't discard the 9). Nonetheless, all of the foregoing is consistent
with my definition and I'll stick with it
- Harry