[BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete?

Jack Rhind jrhind at therock.bm
Thu Feb 21 13:49:34 CET 2013


Whoops, I guess I missed that. Sorry.

Jack

On 2/21/13 2:52 AM, "Hans van Staveren" <sater at xs4all.nl> wrote:

>Would have been easy, but dummy *did not have* the DA
>
>Hans
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of
>Jack Rhind
>Sent: donderdag 21 februari 2013 4:02
>To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
>Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete?
>
>Provided that the defenders agree that the DA was called I would have them
>play the DA on the correct trick and put the HA back in dummy.
>
>Anyone unhappy with that solution?
>
>Jack
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:21 PM, Steve Willner <swillner at nhcc.net> wrote:
>
>> [Declarer calls for D-A, dummy puts H-A into played position, other
>> three players contribute diamonds, and the problem is not noticed
>> until several tricks later.]
>> 
>> On 2013-02-20 10:43 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote:
>>> But still I think the answer must be defective trick.
>> 
>> As far as I can tell, the Laws don't give a solution.  Ton: could you
>> put this on your list for next time?  Or am I missing something?
>> 
>> There seem to be at least three answers, none demonstrably wrong:
>> 1. treat it as a defective trick, as Hans wrote.  As far as I can
>> tell, this means the H-A goes back to dummy, a card from dummy
>> (diamond if
>> possible) goes into the prior trick, and the prior trick is deemed won
>> by whichever of the three other diamonds (not the card dummy has
>> added) was highest.
>> 
>> 2. treat the prior trick as having become a heart trick.  This means
>> the H-A has won the trick (unless diamonds were trumps), and there
>> were potentially three revokes to rectify.  (Director will need to see
>> whether anyone was out of hearts at the time.)  If both sides revoked,
>> there are no rectification tricks per L64B7, but L64C would apply.
>> 
>> 3. keep the H-A with the prior trick but consider the trick to have
>> been a diamond trick.  Trick is deemed won by highest of three
>> diamonds played; in effect dummy has revoked.  There is no
>> rectification for the revoke per L64B3, but if declarer's side gained
>> any tricks, restore equity per L64C.  (This last is more likely if the
>> card played in error was a spot card rather than an ace.)
>> 
>> It looks to me as though 3 has the virtue of simplicity: it is just
>> the way any established revoke would be handled.  But that doesn't
>> make it correct.  I'm not even sure my list is complete.
>> 
>> [By the way, could people please refrain from emailing in HTML?]
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml at rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>_______________________________________________
>Blml mailing list
>Blml at rtflb.org
>http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>_______________________________________________
>Blml mailing list
>Blml at rtflb.org
>http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml




More information about the Blml mailing list