[blml] Could have known

[David Barton]

>> 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?
>>
>> Sven wrote:-
>>
>> 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
>>
>> The hand was something like:-
>>
>>                             Qxxxx
>>                             Axxx
>>                             Kx
>>                             xx
>>
>> AK                                               xx
>> xxx                                               KQ
>> Axx                                              Qxxx
>> Jxxxx                                            AKQxx
>>
>>                              J10xx
>>                              Jxxx
>>                              Jxxx
>>                              x
>> 1N (12-14) P  3N  all pass
>>
>> North lead 4th highest spade.
>> West won and cashed 5 clubs and then played a H.
>> North won and continued a spade.
>> South pulled the wrong card from his hand (a diamond)
>> and corrected it to a spade.
>> West saw the chance of a valuable overtrick (if S had DK)
>> and continued with a small D.
>> North took this and cashed 3 more spades for down one.
>>
>> At the point of the mispull S has a full count of the hand.
>> In other words the "could have known" condition is satisfied.
>> A villainous South could realise that the MPC might work
>> to his advantage and was risk free.
>> South did indeed gain from his infraction.
>>
>> As I read it, the intent of the particular South is NOT relevant.
>> In fact since I was the perpetrator and TD, I know the action
>> was innocent, but still believe that there is a strong arguement
>> that I should rule against myself under L72B1.
>>
>> Further comments welcome.
>
> What did South discard on the last four club tricks and what if anything 
> did
> his discards (both his discards on the club tricks and also his "discard"
> with the Diamond) signal to North?
>
> Sven

Not sure where this is going but
North had thrown his 3 small hearts while indicating he wanted spades
South had thrown 2 diamonds 1heart and 1 spade while also indicating
a spade continuation.
There would be no specific meaning to a 5th "discard" of a diamond, but
North also had a sufficient count to know to go in with the DK and cash
his spade winners.
I believe the discards would have been identical with the DK and DJ
interchanged.

What is the point?

*****************************************
  david.j.barton at lineone.net
*****************************************





-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/785 - Release Date: 02/05/2007 14:16