[blml] Live exam question

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 12:13 25/09/2006 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote:

>OK, let us deal with the infractions as they occurred.
>The TD inquires of South as to whether he has revoked.
>South acknowledges possession of at least one club and corrects the
>revoke immediately (62A/B2).  We now apply L62C and West chooses to play
>a club instead of the Spade - this occurs without penalty.

IBTD. West has revoked. Why should the fact that South revoked influence 
the fact that West holds some clubs ? Do you deem West's play nonexistent ? 
This seems inconsistent with the fact that, for the sake of establishing 
revokes, East's remark is equivalent to playing to a new trick.


>Which must be the second most stupid law in the book after L25b.
>Revokes should be corrected and any information arising from revoke
>enquires (regardless of correction) regarded as UI.  The nonsense about
>correcting, and suffering a penalty card, and suffering the revoke
>penalty should be expunged.

Objection. This is one rare case where UI will be given, Sherlock's way, by 
the fact that parner keeps mum.
That is, when West should have one more, accounting for East's holding, 
East will ask, and when it's quite possible West doesn't, he will not. Now, 
how do you establish that a perfectly quiet and silent East has transmitted 
UI ? (you'd need to know this peculiar East's habits : does he ask or not ?).

The only way to avoid this (possibly unintentional) undetectable 
transmission of UI was to disallow such questions altogether.

Best regards,

    Alain.