[BLML] a case for Law 11?

Petrus Schuster OSB petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at
Sat Aug 10 10:25:43 CEST 2013


Jxx                      x
Kxxx                     AQxx
xx                       Axx
QJTx                     xxxxx


Pairs; North is an experienced TD and South his client; E-W are junior  
South is in 4 Spades.

Lead CQ taken in hand, 3 rounds of trumps finishing in the hand.

On the lead of DK, West discards a club and East enquires "having none?"  
(which is legal). West then plays a diamond and declarer says something to  
the effect of "It's all right, let's just play on." East wins the ace, and  
now dummy says, "There was a revoke after all, we should call the TD."

The TD explains the revoke law, and on dummy's request ("my partner is  
inexperienced") explains to declarer the consequences of a penalty card.  
Declarer now requires a club lead and pitches Hxx on the diamonds, making  

East complains that, had he known the consequences of a penalty card, he  
would have ducked DA twice, removing the penalty card and being able to  
cash the heart tricks.

As DA had been played before the TD was summoned, we let the table result  
stand, pointing out that
- both sides have violated 9B1a
- declarer may not waive a penalty (10A)
- 11A does not apply as the irregularity to be rectified was the  
un-established revoke, with the penalty card only being a consequence of  
the rectification of the irregularity

This last point was discussed at length between the TDs and by the appeals  
committee, and I would be interested in your opinioins. IF you decide to  
apply 11A, what would your ruling be? I told the AC they could not split  
the score, or can they?



More information about the Blml mailing list