[BLML] Absent dummy and consequences

Gordon Rainsford gordonrainsford at btinternet.com
Wed Mar 14 09:48:33 CET 2012


It's worth noting that there are no limits on the power of a director to 
deem that an exposed card is not a penalty card. I'm not sure that this 
is appropriate here however, because I can't see how this case differs 
from one where the dummy is present and RHO plays, having misheard, 
before dummy puts the card in the played position.

Gordon Rainsford

On 14/03/2012 08:33, Hans van Staveren wrote:
>
> Yesterday I heard about the following case:
>
> A board was played, dummy was away.
>
> Declarer called the cards and opponents handled the dummy.
>
> Now dummy contained both red fives and was on lead.
>
> RHO heard heart five, and played the heart ace from his hand before 
> picking up the heart five from dummy.
>
> Now declarer said that he specified the diamond five. Director!
>
> Director ruled the diamond five played and the heart ace a major 
> penalty card. This led to the contract, a doubled game, making instead 
> of going one off.
>
> I have my thoughts about this, but first want to hear some opinions.
>
> Hans
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120314/16777f49/attachment.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list