[blml] Belgian TD exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Alain Gottcheiner:

[snip]

>x                       Axxx
>xx                      Axxxx
>Kxx                     Jxxx
>AKQJ10xx                ---
>
>1C                      1H
>3C                      3NT
>
>Eke pika regxo ... sorry, the lead is the king of spades.
>Declarer grabs the Ace, thinks for a while, then calls for
>CA. North carelessly follows suit.
>
>According to L72B1, declarer's score shall be corrected to
>3NT minus whatever is suitable, unless DA lies in front of
>the king and spades are 4-4 (which, of course, was not the
>case in said deal : the right score was - 7).
>
>But, since North's neglectfulness caused his bad score, he
>keeps it.

Richard Hills:

I disagree with the last sentence.  The infraction was not
merely East leading from the wrong hand, but also East
leading from the wrong hand when East "could have known"
that this may hugely benefit the East-West side.

Therefore North-South get the score they would have gained
if East's "could have known" infraction had not occurred,
unless North's action in automatically following suit to
the lead from dummy is deemed to be irrational, wild or
gambling.

WBF Code of Practice, page 5:

"If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own
damage by irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not
receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the
damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side, however,
should be awarded the score that it would have been
allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction."

But in this case North "carelessly" followed suit, not
"irrationally" followed suit.  (In the footnote to the
claim laws, "careless or inferior" is deemed to be
"normal", not "irrational".)  Ergo, the score should have
been adjusted to 3NT -7 for both sides.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285