[blml] Could have known

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 16:42 2/05/2007 +0100, David Barton wrote:
>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?


Let's tackle the last part first.
The answer is a loud and clear "no".
"could have known" means that the intent doesn't make any difference ; only 
the possibility does ; ie if South is a beginner who can't imagine the 
position, he couldn't have known ; but his bona fide is irrelevant, and 
impossible to test BTW.

Now for part (a) : I think it would be stretching a little to state that 
South could have foreseen that West would be prone to take that risk ; it's 
only a 50-50 proposition after all. Most Wests wouldn't like to gamble 
this. Ready to listen at arguments to the contrary.
This solves part (b).

Best regards

                 Alain

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070503/f90673fb/attachment-0001.htm