[BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Mon Nov 25 18:37:18 CET 2013


On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:27:01 -0500, Roger Pewick <axman22 at hotmail.com>  
wrote:

>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Robert Frick" <rfrick at rfrick.info>
> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 19:52
> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Subject: Re: [BLML] interesting probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>
>> On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:47:33 -0500, Richard HILLS
>> <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:
>>
>>>> UNOFFICIAL
>>> Law 46B4:
>>> “If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and
>>> declarer may
>>> designate any legal card.”
>>> New scenario:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>> Newer scenario:
>>> The contract is 7NT. In the two-card ending dummy is on lead, holding
>>> the ace
>>> of diamonds and the three of spades. Davros knows that RHO holds the  
>>> ace
>>> of
>>> spades, and Davros also knows that RHO is now void in diamonds.
>>> So Davros calls, “two of spades”. RHO innocently plays the ace of
>>> spades. Now
>>> Davros summons an ACBL Director:
>>> (1) That ACBL Director correctly rules that the ace of spades is a
>>> penalty card.
>>> (2) That ACBL Director correctly rules that the ace of diamonds may now
>>> be
>>> called from dummy.
>>> (3) That ACBL Director incorrectly rules “No irregularity from Davros,
>>> so the
>>> 7NT contract makes.”
>>> If instead Director Who had been summoned, his Key to Time is:
>>> Law 46A, Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card:
>>> “When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer ++should++  
>>> clearly
>>> state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.”
>>
>> Arguably, declarer was not calling a card from dummy. If he was, he  
>> named
>> suit and rank.
>>
>> Put another way -- this is a law about proper form, and declarer used
>> proper form.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>> Introduction:
>>> “ ..... “should” do (failure to do it is an ++infraction++ jeopardizing
>>> the
>>> infractor’s rights but not often penalized) ..... ”
>>> UNOFFICIAL
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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. DIBP 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
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com
>
>
>
>> On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:47:33 -0500, Richard HILLS
>> <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  UNOFFICIAL
>>
>>  Law 46B4:
>>
>>  “If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and
>> declarer may
>>  designate any legal card.”
>>
>>  New scenario:
>>
>>  >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.
>>  >
>>  >Bob
>>
>>  Newer scenario:
>>
>>  The contract is 7NT. In the two-card ending dummy is on lead, holding  
>> the
>> ace
>>  of diamonds and the three of spades. Davros knows that RHO holds the  
>> ace
>> of
>>  spades, and Davros also knows that RHO is now void in diamonds.
>>
>>  So Davros calls, “two of spades”. RHO innocently plays the ace of
>> spades. Now
>>  Davros summons an ACBL Director:
>>
>>  (1) That ACBL Director correctly rules that the ace of spades is a
>> penalty card.
>>  (2) That ACBL Director correctly rules that the ace of diamonds may now
>> be
>>  called from dummy.
>>  (3) That ACBL Director incorrectly rules “No irregularity from  
>> Davros,
>> so the
>>  7NT contract makes.”
>>
>>  If instead Director Who had been summoned, his Key to Time is:
>
>
>>  Law 46A, Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card:
>>
>>  “When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer ++should++
>> clearly
>>  state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.”
>
>> Arguably, declarer was not calling a card from dummy. If he was, he  
>> named
>> suit and rank.
>
> Robert,
>
> Are you reading the law or the heading?
>
>> Put another way -- this is a law about proper form, and declarer used
>> proper form.
>
> Well yes- the law is about calling the desired card**.  As such it is  
> what
> declarer desires that is relevant.  If he calls the D2 and had desired  
> the
> D2 then he indeed has done nothing wrong; including the instance when  
> dummy
> does not have the D2.  further, in the latter case when instead declarer
> having called the D2, but did not desire the D2, who is to be the wiser  
> when
> he asserts he did desire the D2?
>
> ** distinct from naming a card that dummy has
>
> regards,
> roger pewick


Hi Roger. First, I do not like the ruling for that card being a penalty  
card. I wish your argument was more persuasive.

What is there is no desired card? Declarer is allowed to make extraneous  
comments, such as "I'm hungry" or "two of spades". RIght?

To give another real-life example, declarer said "singleton-king",  
refering to the fact that the club king was singleton. Should this be  
interpreted as calling for play of the singleton king of diamonds in  
dummy? And if not, is defender's play of the ace of diamonds a penalty  
card?


More information about the Blml mailing list