[BLML] adjudicating doubtful points

Herman De Wael Hermandw at skynet.be
Tue Nov 2 21:25:43 CET 2010


OK Bob, good example.

Robert Frick wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 04:58:00 -0400, Herman De Wael<Hermandw at skynet.be>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes indeed, Bob:
>>
>> Robert Frick wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:30:16 -0400, Eric Landau<ehaa at starpower.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Robert Frick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Declarer claims stating he will draw trump.
>>>>>
>>>>> A10xxx
>>>>>
>>>>> KJxxx
>>>>>
>>>>> If he had included in his claiming statement that he was starting
>>>>> with the
>>>>> king, I believe we allow him to finesse for the queen if RHO shows
>>>>> out.
>>>>> But he did not.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we resolve this doubtful point against the claimer, then I
>>>>> assume we
>>>>> have his first "play" be from whatever hand doesn't allow him to
>>>>> pick up
>>>>> the queen.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we resolve this doubtful point against the nonclaimers, then I
>>>>> assume
>>>>> we have his first play be from whatever hand allows him to pick up the
>>>>> queen. So he always picks up the suit.
>>>>
>>>> All this is true, but why does Bob post it?  A declarer with that
>>>> holding stating he will draw trump, with no further indication as to
>>>> how he will play the suit, will, of course, be presumed to lose to
>>>> the queen.  L70D1 is neither unclear nor ambiguous on this point.
>>>> Bob's last paragraph, while surely true, is a pure hypothetical.
>>>> Does anyone think otherwise?  Does anyone think this ought to be
>>>> changed?  What are we discussing?
>>>
>>> Sorry, my fault for not being clear that this is not hypothetical. WBFLC
>>> Minute 10:
>>>
>>>
>>> “If a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon
>>> a defender disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence,
>>> the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow
>>> correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as
>>> equitably as possible, adjudicating any doubtful point against
>>> the revoker.”
>>>
>>> It might have been useful to distinguish (1) doubtful points created by
>>> the correction of the reoke (if there is such a thing) and (2) doubtful
>>> points unrelated to correction of the revoke. Suppose the play of the
>>> trump suit is unrelated to the correction of the revoke. We still have
>>> by
>>> the WBFLC minute that the doubtful point (whether to play the ace or
>>> king
>>> first) is resolved in favor of the claimer.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What Bob is thinking of is a totally unlikely scenario like this one:
>> 1) Declarer makes a faulty claim.
>> 2) Defender now finds a non-established revoke in a totally unrelated
>> suit
>> 3) Declarer's claim is now ruled in his favour.
>>
>> I don't know what he intends to do with this scenario, but if it is this
>> one:
>> -since this ruling is now totally ridiculous, the law must be changed;
>> then Bob is wrong.
>> A ruling, even if ridiculous, can be allowed to stand if the
>> circumstances leading to it are so totally unlikely that the situation
>> will never arise.
>> And please also consider this:
>> This particular claim is completely wrong, and independently so of the
>> revoke. But there may well be claims that are a little bit less wrong,
>> and a bit more dependent on the revoke. For example, when LHO shows out
>> in hearts, LHO must be the one with the trump and cashing the correct
>> A/K first almost becomes the only normal line. Maybe not enoug yet, but
>> you get my drift. Why should we have to draw a line somewhere -
>> opponents revoked, did they not?
>>
>
> Hi Herman. This situation could arise. I realize that an opponent revoked.
> Normally I just tell them, but suppose I decide I really want to get a
> good score. I could lead to the next trick and hope they follow suit,
> getting an extra trick if I misguess the queen in AJx opposite K10x. But
> it is safer to claim (if I get the benefit of the doubt, and assuming the
> only remaining loser is possibly misguessing the queen). More generally,
> benefit of doubt can be worth a lot. (Hmmm, always worth more if it is the
> second revoke in the suit.)
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
>
>

You are right if, but only you have all the tricks save one (*). 
Establishing the revoke will bring you that trick, but if the B** 
discovers his revoke you will not gain it.
If OTOH you claim, even if he discovers it, you wil get the queen from 
the TD.
Do you really mind this happening (as TD)? Turning 80% of a trick into 100%?
And do you really want to change the law just because of this ploy?

(*) If you miss more than one trick, your better line is to get the 
revoke established (wins a trick) and then guess the queen (another half 
trick).

-- 
Herman De Wael
Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium


More information about the Blml mailing list