[BLML] a case for Law 11?

Herman De Wael hermandw at skynet.be
Sun Aug 11 10:07:12 CEST 2013

Interesting case, Petrus.
There is one point you missed.
I would not care if dummy had insisted on calling the TD before any 
other play, but he only asked for the TD AFTER the DA had been played.
Before that, declarer had waived the penalty - which is quite common. In 
that case, taking the ace believing there is no lead penalty is also 
quite allowed.
The combined actions of dummy and declarer have forced East to take the 
DA, and this should not be allowed.
10 tricks to both sides, I believe.


Petrus Schuster OSB schreef:
>               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."
> 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
> - 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?
> Regards,
> Petrus
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6568 - Release Date: 08/10/13

More information about the Blml mailing list