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

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills:

>>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.

Richard Hills:

I disagree with this application of Law.  In my
opinion, this is the sequence of application of
Law:

Law 44G:

"The player who has won the trick leads to the
next trick."

Declarer infracted Law 44G by leading from the
entryless dummy when the closed hand had won
the previous trick.

WBF Code of Practice, page 5:

"Damage exists when, in consequence of the
infraction, an innocent side obtains a table
result less favourable than would have been the
expectation in the instant prior to the
infraction."

In the instant prior to the Law 44G infraction,
Law 53A was neither applicable nor relevant.

Law 12A1:

"The Director may award an assigned adjusted
score when he judges that these Laws do not
provide indemnity to the non-offending
contestant for the particular type of violation
of law committed by an opponent."

Since Law 44G does not provide an indemnity to
the non-offending side for its infraction, the
Director can use Law 12A1 to adjust the score
for the non-offending side (while using the
"could have known" Law 72B1 to adjust the score
of, and award a procedural penalty to, the
offending side).

Best wishes

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