[BLML] The cad!
Herman De Wael
hermandw at skynet.be
Thu May 28 08:28:58 CEST 2015
Richard is turning the thing on his head.
It is not the asker of the second question who commits an act of
misleading, but rather the answerer of the first one.
Not giving a complete answer is an infraction. Any advantage that is the
result of this infraction should be taken away.
Asking a second question can never be an infraction. There are numerous
bridge reasons to be found for this second question, other than "for
partner's benefit". And yes, the reason "I knew they were playing X, but
when he did not say what I expected, I wanted to check whether he had
not, in fact, switched to Y".
Richard correctly states that a player is supposed to protect himself.
What should he do after an incomplete explanation of which he suspects
it is incomplete? Simply follow the answer or protect himself by
checking that what he suspects is in fact true?
Why do you insist on trying to punish the innocent party and leaving the
Richard Hills schreef:
> Herman De Wael suggested:
> ".....the incomplete answer leads to the finding of the queen. Whoever
> asks more, you play the queen on the other side....."
> In my opinion, as discussed in the "Fourth suit farce" thread, players
> are required to protect themselves after a trivial error by the
> opponents. So, if Richard Hills was West and Hilda R. Lirsch was East,
> then neither of us would "ask more".
> Law 20G1 prohibits asking a question solely for partner's benefit. One
> cannot dodge the application of this Law with the excuse, "I know that
> the opponents have been playing EHAA for a decade, but perhaps they have
> just switched to playing Nottingham Club instead." So to avoid a Law
> 20G1 infraction again one has to protect oneself.
> Likewise, to avoid a Law 73F unnecessary and deceptive question
> infraction, the solution is to avoid asking the deceptive question in
> the first place. Nigel Guthrie's attractive idea of always asking a
> question is alas illegal. Law 73F does not encompass a legal
> question cancelling an illegal question a la positron - electron
> Best wishes,
> Richard Hills
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2015, Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be
> <mailto:hermandw at skynet.be>> wrote:
> I have ruled this, and I have been overturned by the Belgian Appeal
> I still believe my ruling is the exact one.
> On the question: what is 5H? there is only one correct answer : 2 KC
> without the Q of trumps.
> If that answer is not given, anything the opponents do has a bridge
> So the possibly misleading action must be allowed, and if one draws a
> conclusion out of it, that is to his own risk.
> After all, the incomplete answer leads to the finding of the queen.
> Whoever asks more, you play the queen on the other side, and you are
> certain to find her, or get her from the TD. That's too easy.
> Richard Hills schreef:
> > As they say in the movies, this is Based Upon A True Story.
> > All four players are Canberra experts. North-South use Keycard
> > to reach 6S, with South declarer. As is his wont, West requests an
> > explanation of every bid in the auction. When it comes to 5H the
> > incomplete explanation "two keycards" is given. West then asks the
> > supplementary question, "Does it deny the queen of spades?"
> > Of course the answer is affirmative, and of course the success of 6S
> > depends on a two-way finesse for the queen of trumps, and of course
> > declarer finesses through East, and of course West wins the setting
> > trick with the queen.
> > Declarer casts aspersions at West, then summons the Director.
> > How would you rule?
> > Best wishes,
> > Richard Hills
> > _______________________________________________
> > Blml mailing list
> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> Blml mailing list
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
More information about the Blml