[blml] Correction of a revoke

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
***********************
"In nature there are neither
rewards nor punishments -
there are consequences.
              [R.G.Ingersoll]
 +++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jerry Fusselman" <jfusselman at gmail.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Correction of a revoke


> On Jan 2, 2008 2:11 PM,  <Gampas at aol.com> wrote:
>> In a message dated 02/01/2008 19:26:58 GMT Standard Time,
>> ereppert at rochester.rr.com writes:
>>
>> > Your logic seems to imply that
>> > paying sufficient attention  to the game requires seeing the opponent's
>> > hands every time one  claims.
>>
>> I think his logic implies that paying sufficient attention to  the
>> game means that one will know what's in opponents' hands when  one
>> claims. A supposition that is probably true at expert level,  and
>> nowhere close to true at the level at which I play. :-)
>>
>> [paul lamford] Whether you notice that an opponent has revoked may be
>> unrelated to whether you paid attention or not. For example, you play 6NT
>> by South
>> on the following hands on the lead of the QS.
>>
>> S AK5
>> H AQ9
>> D AK
>> C AQJ32
>>
>> S 432
>> H JT3
>> D QJ
>> C KT987
>>
>> You win the lead and cross to the ten of clubs on which West shows
>> out. You take the heart finesse which loses and you say: One down,
>> I will not insult you  by playing them out, a spade to you. At half-time
>> you notice that West did have  a club. It is now too late to do anything
>> about it, but you have not been  inattentive in any way.
>>
>
> Nice example, Paul.  That is indeed exactly what Konrad and I were
> thinking of.  Konrad just gave a similar example, where his team lost
> about 30 IMPs.  I have to agree with Konrad 100% on his points.
>
> Jerry Fusselman
>
+=+ It is an interesting example. However the law is what it is. It
does not regard failure to collect the tricks artificially transferred as
being 'damage'.  In respect of Law 64 the only matter raised with
the DSC was with regard to 64B2. In the subcommittee this question
from an NBO was discussed at length and the final outcome you see.
No-one, be it from within or from without the DSC, expressed a
desire that we review Law 64B4 or Law 64B5.  Since this law has
remained the same since 1973 (and in the 1963 Code listed what is
now 64B5 but not 64B4) it is conceivable that Directors, NBOs and
international bodies are comfortable with it the way it is.
                                                ~ Grattan ~   +=+