[blml] Could have known

[Sven Pran]

On Behalf Of David Barton

West is declarer in a No Trump contract at matchpoints.
At about T8 North leads a Spade.
South produces a Diamond, promptly says sorry and plays a Spade.
Director rules the D is a MPC - must be played at first legal opportunity
etc.
Declarer wins the trick and has now got a choice.
With Axx of D in hand opposite Qx in dummy she can play play small to the
Q making one more trick than the field if S holds the K.
However if N holds the K he can win and hold the contract to one less than
the field.
 
(a) If declarer plays the D and N does win do you adjust on the basis that
     the expert S could have known the MPC could work to his advantage?
 
(b) If declarer does not play the D and S does hold the K do you adjust on
     the basis that had Declarer been told of the possibility of an
adjustment
     if the play had worked out badly, she would have risked it?
     (Director error?).
 
Does it make any difference if you are convinced (know) that the original
D play was completely innocent?

This last question illustrates a fact that for a long time has had me
completely baffled: In Norway (and I believe equally much in our neighboring
countries) we assume that the players do not cheat unless we are convinced
that they do. Similarly we assume that infractions of law are accidental
unless we are convinced that they are deliberate. After all we consider
Bridge a game for Gentlemen (and ladies).

The question seems to confirm an impression I have had several times that
elsewhere in the world there is a common attitude to assume that players
cheat and deliberately violate the laws whenever they have an opportunity if
it may work to their advantage.

That much said: 

To your question (b) I cannot see how the Director has made any error; he
has correctly explained the consequences of South's irregularity and it is
up to West to draw the inferences he may want from these consequences. West
should know perfectly well that if he has been damaged from opponents'
irregularities rather than from his own inferior or risky play he is likely
to receive redress.

So we are left with question (a): To rule on this alternative I shall need
the complete layout of the cards and the proceedings of the tricks up to the
irregularity. I shall further need information on what (if any) information
the discard of a Diamond from South would convey to his partner (their
signaling agreements).

Regards Sven