[BLML] a case for Law 11?

Petrus Schuster OSB petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at
Sat Aug 10 20:32:00 CEST 2013


Am 10.08.2013, 16:40 Uhr, schrieb Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no>:

>> Petrus Schuster OSB
>> Sendt: 10. august 2013 10:26
>> Til: blml at rtflb.org
>> Emne: [BLML] a case for Law 11?
>>
>>              AQx
>>              xxx
>>              QJTxx
>>              Kx
>>
>> Jxx                      x
>> Kxxx                     AQxx
>> xx                       Axx
>> QJTx                     xxxxx
>>
>>              KTxxxx
>>              xx
>>              Kxx
>>              Ax
>>
>>
>> Pairs; North is an experienced TD and South his client; E-W are junior
>> internationals.
>> 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."
> [Sven Pran]
> Dummy may not draw attention to any regularity at this time, nor call the
> director unless another player has drawn attention to the irregularity.
> So IMHO Dummy has violated Laws 42B3, 43A1{a} and 43A1{b}

After attention has been drawn to an irregularity - and while it may be  
open to discussion whether defender's reaction to his partner's question  
has already done this, or only declarer's reaction to the replacement of  
the revoke card - dummy is entitled to call the TD (9B1b).

>>
>> 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
> 12.
>>
>> 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
> [Sven Pran]
> Neither side has violated Law 9B1{a}, this law cannot apply before  
> attention
> is DRAWN to an irregularity
>> - 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?
> [Sven Pran]
> Law 11A says:
>
> The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either
> member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the
> Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending
> side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in
> ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law.
>
> The irregularity was the (unestablished) revoke. Non-offending side took
> some action before summoning the Director and subsequent actions by
> offending side  was taken in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the
> law.
>
> These relevant provisions include the establishment of a major penalty  
> card
> and the consequences of this penalty card on subsequent plays.
>
> I may rule that West indeed has a penalty card, but that East then must  
> be
> heard on his assertion that he would have ducked DA twice so that no lead
> restrictions could be imposed on him when he eventually won his trick  
> with
> the DA.
>
> Or I may rule that because of the failure (legally) to draw attention to  
> the
> revoke and call the Director no penalty card has been established.
>
> In either case the consequence will be that the table result is  
> corrected to
> 4S making 10.
>
> The AC may indeed assign split scores if they find this justified (i.e.
> making 10 effective for NS and making 12 effective for EW), but I don't
> think that this is the case here.
>
>




> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml


More information about the Blml mailing list