[blml] Belgian TD exam question

[Peter Eidt]

> > 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.

Peter Eidt:

I disagree with this sentence.

North is bound to Law 53 A:
"Any lead faced out of turn may be treated 
as a correct lead. It becomes a correct lead 
[...] if the player next in rotation [...] plays to 
the irregular lead [...]"
In this law there's nothing about "irrationally
plays to the irregular play" or the like.
So, NS get the table score while for the
declarer we apply Law 72 B1 as he did
gain through the irregularity.

> 
> 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.