[BLML] a case for Law 11?

Petrus Schuster OSB petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at
Sat Aug 10 20:34:23 CEST 2013


Am 10.08.2013, 19:38 Uhr, schrieb Steve Willner <swillner at nhcc.net>:

> The original event took place in Austria, and it's legal for defenders
> to ask each other about revokes there?  (I'm keeping a mental list.)

Yes

>
> On 2013-08-10 10:40 AM, Sven Pran wrote:
>> 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}
>
> I think you could argue that attention has been drawn to the revoke, so
> it would be OK, indeed his duty, for dummy to call the TD right away.
> Waiting until two more cards have been played makes this argument pretty
> dubious.
>
>> 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.
>
> As Sven wrote, these look like the exact conditions for L11A.
>
>> 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.
>
> This looks right to me.
>
>> 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.
>
> If no attention has been drawn, dummy's call for the TD was improper,
> and we're back to L12A1.
>
>> In either case the consequence will be that the table result is  
>> corrected to
>> 4S making 10.
>
> Also looks right to me.
>
>> 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.
>
> I don't understand what the basis for a split score would be.  If
> there's doubt about what might have happened absent the irregularity --
> doubt I don't see here -- you could give a weighted score.  Or is that
> not possible in Austria?
>
It is. But to assign a split (or a weighted) score is of course only  
possible if you think 11A can be applied. And in that case, I would give a  
straightforward 620.

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


More information about the Blml mailing list