[BLML] illegal deception at Basketball
bridge at vwalther.de
Wed Dec 27 22:31:31 CET 2017
"The opponent did in fact think at that junction about whether
to show his 5-5, and he decided against it because of his point holding."
This sounds like a pretty good bridge reason to me, not like an illegal
Am 25.12.2017 um 08:58 schrieb Herman De Wael:
> Let me teel you my final dream of this morning:
> Apparently I'm Director at the final of the NBA, and it's halftime
> between tw halves of 60 minutes each. I know that this is longer than a
> regular match, so I ask one of the players how long a regular match
> lasts. The answer was 67 minutes but of course my subconscious cannot
> know hat my conscious doesn't.
> At this point two players approach me, asking if it is still time to ask
> a ruling. And they start telling me hich ruling - it's a bridge one.
> At this point I wake up, but the bridge question haunts me and I
> construct the following case:
> During the play of the hand, a declarer needs to find out if a suit is
> divided 5-2 or 4-3. The opponent who has 5 or 4 is known to also have 5
> of a different suit. Declarer has noticed that opponent thinking during
> the bidding, and he checks the system card - indeed they play something
> to indicate that particular 5-5 at that point in the auction. So
> Declarer plays for theplayer to have only four, and it turns out he does
> have five. The opponent did in fact think at that junction about whether
> to show his 5-5, and he decided against it because of his point holding.
> That holding is so low that there should have been no time needed for
> the decision and so illegal deception kicks in.
> Declarer has drawn a wrong conclusion from the action of an opponent who
> had no bridge reason for that action. Can we rule illegal deception if
> the conclusion is wrong for a different reason?
> Which I think is a good question.
> So you see, Basketball can be an interesting game as well.
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
More information about the Blml