[BLML] Could have known

Richard Hills hildalirsch at gmail.com
Sun May 22 16:45:33 CEST 2016


Peter Smulders:

And how about L12B1?

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending
side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side
through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an
innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been
the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b).

Richard Hills:

And how about Law 10C4?

"Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is
appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to
their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own
infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50)."

In my opinion declarer's 6S did not fail "because of an infraction" a la
Law 12B1. Rather the slam failed "because of a brilliant false card, the
heart jack opening lead by West". Indeed, the false card was so brilliant
that as Director I would rule that East was also fooled, hence a Law 23
ruling against East does not reach the first base of "could have been
aware".

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

On Sunday, May 22, 2016, Peter Smulders <p.j.m.smulders at home.nl> wrote:

>
> >
> >From: Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be <javascript:;>>
> >Precedence: list
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <blml at rtflb.org <javascript:;>>
> >References: <000001d1b261$b0140950$103c1bf0$@optusnet.com.au>
> >         <1852519631.7464316.1463734235732.JavaMail.zimbra at centrum.is
> <javascript:;>>
> >         <573EDBE9.1000909 at skynet.be <javascript:;>>
> >         <000201d1b284$a3630da0$ea2928e0$@optusnet.com.au>
> >         <5740124F.2080101 at skynet.be <javascript:;>>
> >         <000601d1b345$78a3efa0$69ebcee0$@optusnet.com.au>
> >         <CAGZGHAj=
> wYyqGQkbo0jgyPUChzzdpngjDso1RauoL_Eatv-rWQ at mail.gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >In-Reply-To:
> ><CAGZGHAj=wYyqGQkbo0jgyPUChzzdpngjDso1RauoL_Eatv-rWQ at mail.gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> >Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 10:47:32 +0200
> >Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <blml at rtflb.org <javascript:;>>
> >Message-ID: <57417224.3080905 at skynet.be <javascript:;>>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known
> >Message: 4
> >
> >I was in fact referring to L23
> >Herman (egg off-face)
>
> And how about L12B1?
>
> The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending
> side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side
> through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an
> innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been
> the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org <javascript:;>
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160522/79ea5bd3/attachment.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list