[BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you rule, and why?

Grattan grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk
Thu May 6 14:16:32 CEST 2010



Grattan Endicott<grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk
********************************
Skype directory:  grattan.endicott
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
" Thus times do shift, each thing his turn does hold
  New things succeed, as former things grow old."
                                 [Robert Herrick]                         .
"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <gampas at aol.com>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: [BLML] "I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How do you
rule, and why?


> [paul lamford]
> I recall a strong England International psyching an opening bid of Four
> Hearts with a weak hand with long spades. Patrick Jourdain was stuck
> over him with a game force with hearts, and the auction went all pass
> as it would. Patrick led and the strong but abrasive England
> international put his hand back in the slot, conceding 10 off, against
> the cold slam for his opponents.
>
> Patrick wanted to see his hand, but the declarer refused, indicating
> that he could not contest a claim of 0 tricks, and there was no
> question of any revoke (there had been no play), a CPA(dummy had a
> balanced 1 count) or any other infraction.
>
> I must agree that reading the Laws I can find no right of the opponents
> in this case, and they do not provide for calling the director when
> there has been no infraction of any type.
>
+=+ Even after a claim of 0 tricks won the opponent has a right
to verify this and that would be a satisfactory reason for the request.
       When there is an out of the blue request such has been described
in this correspondence the likely thought in the enquirer's mind is that
there may have been a revoke.
       In my opinion when there is such an enquiry the prima facie
assumption is that it is made in conformity with Law 66D and this
assumption should be made until the Director determines otherwise. .
       It is inaccurate to say the laws "do not provide for calling the
director when there has been no infraction of any type". The laws
provide for the Director to be called when attention is drawn to an
*irregularity*. This irregularity may be either some matter that the
enquirer is seeking to look into, or it may be the enquiry itself if
not made in accordance with Law 66.  Either way the Director
should be summoned.
                                             ~ Grattan ~   +=+



More information about the Blml mailing list