[BLML] complete ANeCdote incomplete? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Herman De Wael hermandw at skynet.be
Tue Feb 26 09:41:14 CET 2013

OK Richard, so now take a step back and turn the problem into a more 
simple one. Declarer calls for the ace of diamonds, which is in fact in 
dummy. Yet the person sitting in dummy's seat places the ace of hearts 
in a played position. Do we agree that the ace of diamonds is played,
If three players follow suit to the diamond ace, have they revoked? Now, 
if all continues, the ace of hearts becomes the card played in the 
trick, and declarer can later call for the ace of diamonds again, and 
will he score that trick.
Do you really want a diamond trick to turn into a heart trick at some 
later stage? Furthermore, if it is a heart trick (to which three people 
have revoked, without penalty), then there is nothing we can do about 
the subsequent trick with the diamond ace.
Far better is it to treat the first trick as a diamond trick, to which 
dummy has revoked by playing the heart ace.

And yes, this is a reductio ad absurdem, and I realize that the 
alternative is not absurd enough to be called impossible, but you must 
see that this solution is also possible.

And yes, this makes the revoke card the first one played to the trick.
Note that L61 includes "failure to lead". This case is not covered, so 
it may not technically be a revoke, but that really does not matter 
since we can't apply revoke penalties anyway (faced hand).


Richard HILLS schreef:
> Macquarie Dictionary:
> argumentum ad rem, argument confined strictly to relevant issues.
> [Latin]
> Herman De Wael:
>>Well, yes indeed, Richard, L45D seems to apply.
>>IF it is remarked, the card must be withdrawn.
>>OK, but it is not remarked, so what do we do? The card remains
>>in the trick?
>>That is the other possible solution.
>>Remark that in your original statement, nothing was said about
>>the card being “put in the played position”. But if it was, yes,
>>then the card is now played and this trick is not defective.
>>But this still remains a diamond trick, unless we want to make
>>three revokes. And in that case the first card was a revoke. That
>>card did not win the trick (it was not the highest diamond in the
>>trick), and there is a one trick revoke penalty as well.
> Richard Hills:
> Herman is attempting the Euclidean argument of “reductio ad
> absurdum”. IF three revokes on the same trick by the three non-
> dummy players are “obviously” absurd, THEN the Laws must be
> ignored and/or twisted to reduce the number of revokes on that
> trick to a just a single revoke by dummy.
> Law 61A - Definition of Revoke:
> “Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to
> lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or
> specified by an opponent when exercising an option in
> rectification of an irregularity, constitutes a revoke. (When
> unable to comply see Law 59.)”
> Richard Hills:
> Dummy did not fail to follow suit, since dummy was on lead.
> And while dummy was requested to play the ace of diamonds
> by declarer, dummy was not required by Law to play the ace
> of diamonds because dummy did not hold the ace of diamonds.
> Ergo, dummy’s Law 45D irregularity in leading the ace of
> hearts was an infraction but not a Law 61A revoke infraction,
> thus the trick under discussion should be deemed to be a heart
> trick, not a diamond trick.
> Best wishes,
> R.J.B. Hills
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
> privileged
> and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
> or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
> intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has
> obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
> policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
> http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6133 - Release Date: 02/25/13

More information about the Blml mailing list