[blml] Revoke established?

[Manuela Mandache]

Selon Roger Pewick <axman22 at hotmail.com>:

> > Whereas I admit that 'unethical' is not the proper word, I in no way can
> be
> > brought to seek after and admire the behavior of RHO described in my
> example.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Manuela
>
> Why are you disgusted with this player for doing this thing?  What is the
> basis?  What fundamental principle underlies your feelings?  Where did this
> principle originate?  Without  these things one is hard pressed to evaluate
> if your feelings are justified by your standards.
>
> regards
> roger pewick

Well, anyway, one may see that I was annoyed enough to forget to put the
address of the list when I posted :o)

There is no bridge reason why a defender should play something if dummy 'places
in played position' a certain card and something else if it is declarer who
calls the very same card. I feel that RHO, unable to produce a proper defense
when playing bridge, uses what I consider a lack in the law (as I said in a
previous posting) to correct his poor play. He is there to play bridge, not to
win a procedural squirmish - I'm getting hot again :o)

On the other hand, one may say this is the righteous punition of dummy for
advancing the cards without declarer's instruction, and of declarer for
accepting this. Whereas I really agree to this, RHO's behaviour still gets on
my nerves.

Very few cases excepted (eg, an established revoke*...), laws and TDs are here
to ensure that the result obtained when there has been an irregularity is as
close as possible to the one that would have regularly been obtained. In my
example, RHO *did* block the clubs.

Cheers,

Manuela


* and then, the punition is conceived to deter such behaviour