[blml] Live exam question

[Tim West-Meads]

> *From:* Steve Willner <willner at cfa.harvard.edu>
> *To:* blml at rtflb.org
> *Date:* Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:25:42 -0400
> 
> > From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
> > While it is legal to ask declarer doing so is not without risk.
> > If declarer *has* revoked there's no problem since partner will be 
> > able to correct under Law62c1 (declarer having no option but to 
> > correct his own revoke#). 
> 
> Doesn't this work only if the revoking defender is West (declarer 
> South), and it's East who asks?  Otherwise it's East who will have to 
> correct his revoke (if any) first.

That's what my # was about.  In fact even where asking is allowed it 
will often be better to say nothing when one believes both players has 
revoked.  Partner's correction will create a penalty card whereas 
allowing both revokes to become established and a later L64c adjustment 
will tend to produce a better result.

> > If declarer *hasn't* revoked the question will be deemed 
> > to be directed at partner.
> 
> This is what I'm having trouble with.  If declarer has followed suit, 
> I'm with you all the way: the question can be directed only at 
> partner. And if partner has followed suit, there's no problem at all. 
>  So the problem only exists when both declarer and a defender have 
> failed to follow suit.
> 
> >  If we permit questions of declarer all the 
> > "awake" player need do is leave his own card face up until the 
> > others have turned their cards and then ask declarer "Excuse me, 
> > but did you just revoke?".
> 
> If declarer didn't follow suit, in my view the defender can ask any 
> time; he doesn't have to be tricky.  And if declarer did follow suit, 
> we agree on what to do.
> 
> > #Obviously if partner has revoked *before* declarer it is almost 
> > certainly better to try to let both revokes become established 
> > rather than say anything.
> 
> That isn't at all obvious to me.  But both having revoked is a rare 
> case.  It must be far more common that the defender knows at least 
> (or only) one of the two has revoked but doesn't know which one.  In 
> that case, I'd think the explicit language of the Laws should prevail 
> over a mere interpretation, no matter how reasonable that 
> interpretation is in other contexts.

It's a bit like asking opps about the meaning of their auction.  Such 
questions are legal but even perfectly legal questions are capable of 
making UI available.  In this case it's not a matter of UI but of a 
legitimate question serving the purpose of an illegal one.

If you like think of it as a "mind-reading" issue. How do we distinguish 
between a defender who *knows* declarer has shown out but partner has 
revoked and a defender who doesn't know which player has revoked.  
Careful questioning won't help you on this one since the perp will 
merely state "Declarer showed out and I am entitled to enquire."

In part my total dislike of this law is to blame.  I examined it (as a 
player) for all possible loopholes.  As a result I concluded (as a TD 
responsible for enforcing the law despite my dislike) that I could not 
uphold the law without closing down such loopholes (others must have 
done the same or the WBF would have given an official extrapolation).  
The exception being where both players *have* revoked and declarer did so 
*first* (but that's an Alcatraz variant for declarer so I was never going 
to allow him to gain thereby).

Tim