[blml] Live exam question

[Steve Willner]

> From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
> 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.

Thanks, Tim.  That clears it up.

> 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.

Well, I see your point, but I still think this interpretation is going 
too far when it has the effect of retracting an explicit permission.

> 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.  

You know my view: the rules should not distinguish between these two 
cases.  Either the question is legal or it (in effect) is not.  The 
player's state of mind shouldn't matter.

> 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).

At least I understand your position, though I still don't agree with it 
for the specific case when declarer has in fact shown out.

We had a L64C ruling the other night -- my first one in many years.  We 
could have avoided the nuisance of it if partner had been awake enough 
to ask declarer why he wasn't following suit; I as East had shown out on 
the previous trick.  No great harm done, but it can save time and 
trouble if defenders can freely ask declarer.  Tim: am I right that you 
would have allowed partner to ask declarer here?  After all, if I was 
the revoker, it would already have been established.