[BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Mon Nov 25 01:58:54 CET 2013

On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 16:27:01 -0500, Richard HILLS  
<richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:

>Richard Hills:
>>> What would Peter’s ruling be if the contract was 3NT???
>>> In that case I would be inclined to believe that declarer encouraging  
>>> LHO’s
>>> false inference as to the nature of the contract infracts Law 73F:
>>> .....
>Alain Gottcheiner:
>> AG : I wouldn’t. Barring very good reasons to the contrary, the simplest
>> explanation is that declarer believes, in all good faith, that he is  
>> playing a
>> trump contract.
>Richard Hills
>“Simplest explanation” and “good faith” are criteria The Doctor should  
> apply when determining if there has been an infraction of Law 73F.  
> Instead
> the criteria that The Doctor should apply are “could have known” and “no
> bridge reason”.
>Alain Gottcheiner:
>> I’ve seen this case at least twice. In both cases, at least one defender
>> exclaimed “do WHAT ?”, solving the problem in a non-academic way
>> before it’s too late.
>> Now there is a debate whether declarer has named an inexistent card (no
>> penalty) or whether he’s called for the suit on dummy’s right (either  
>> card
>> stands as played or unestablished revoke). A majority on blml said it’s  
>> the
>> former.
>Richard Hills:
>Geronimo! Naming a non-existent card may not have a specific  
> rectification,
> but it is still an irregularity. If that irregularity causes damage to  
> the non-
> offending side, then Law 12A1 states:
>“The Doctor may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do
> not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular  
> type of
> violation committed by an opponent.”
>Alain Gottcheiner:
>> Furthermore, in this case, dummy will probably be bamboozled by the
>> instruction, and play nothing, hence no problem.
>Richard Hills:
>Yes, there is a problem; Alain has misread the scenario. Davros did not
> merely call for a non-existent card from dummy, Davros called for that  
> non-
> existent card out of turn. Hence Davros’ LHO was encouraged to play a  
> losing
> diamond card instead of a winning diamond card.

Declarer called for the two of spades from dummy. Defender played a spade.  
While the dummy did contain small spades, there was no 2 of spades. The  
answer from the ACBL was that defender's card was a penalty card.

No irregularity, right? Hence no L23 application.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131125/f6f91449/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Blml mailing list