[BLML] interesting problem

Peter Eidt petereidt at t-online.de
Thu Nov 21 14:17:27 CET 2013


Von: "ton" <t.kooyman at worldonline.nl>
> You seem to agree all of you, which is nice in itself.
> 
> I am not that sure yet. Isn't it true that if we consider the ruff
> statement as equal to having played a card from dummy two things can
> happen, either RHO plays a card or tells that he doesn't accept the
> played card form dummy OOT or LHO plays a card demanding his turn to
> play, after which declarer may withdraw the card played in dummy
> (53C). The other possibility is that LHO played out of turn where his
> partner has to play. Then we arrive in 57A.
> This seems a situation where the TD should be called. Try to explain
> me where I go wrong.

Peter:
Law 53 C cannot apply here because it was not LHO's turn
to _lead_ to the trick; it was declarer's turn to lead - what he did.

When we arrive in Law 57 - what we should - it can only be
part C, where it says in C1 that RHO _may_ play before his
partner without risking any rectification for that. When he
doesn't, no urgent need to call the TD.

> I store it as a live exercise whatever the outcome is.
> 
> ton
> 
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens
> Sven Pran Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2013 11:48
> Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
> Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] interesting problem
> 
> Peter Eidt
> 
> > Von: Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be>
> > > Peter,
> > > I never doubted you would get this correct.
> > > You spared a lot of people some wrong guesses though.
> > > One interesting twist: what if dummy has no trumps?
> > 
> > Peter:
> > ok, i'll leave this to those people mentioned above ;-)
> > 
> > > Herman.
> 
> [Sven Pran]
> In that case we have Law 46B4: "If declarer calls a card that is not
> in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card." 
> So no card has been played from dummy, and LHO may NOT change his
> play.
> 
> (May I add that I really appreciated Peter's very sound logic when
> answering the original question, I was myself initially in a bit of
> doubt) 






More information about the Blml mailing list