[BLML] Absent dummy and consequences
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.
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.
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Blml