[blml] "Reveley" ruling

[Harald Skjæran]

On 12/03/2008, John (MadDog) Probst <john at asimere.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Geller" <geller at nifty.com>
> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 5:23 AM
> Subject: [blml] "Reveley" ruling
>
>
> > richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes:
> >>So a Reveley Ruling is permissible under a Law 27D correction
> >>of a Law 27B1(a) ruling.
>
> A Reveley ruling is where you've decided someone has cheated and adjusted
> the score. You weight the score and include, in part the original auction
> and score. It's a Reveley ruling because you've included part of the weight
> of a score which you deemed illegal. the solution is to find a different
> auction to the same spot and now it's ok, of course.

That might work when we're looking at bidding only. But it doens't
work if we're talking about defence or opening lead.

I once held something like 8x 9xxx Jxx Jxxx in a teams game. RHO
opened 1NT and LHO raised to 3NT. Now I knew I was going to lead S8.
Partner had a problem, and thought about his call for quite a long
time before passing. Of course I now "knew" he had spades and was
thinking about doubling (or bidding 4S). So I had a problem. Knowing
that I'd lead S8 on this sequence with this hand 100% of the time I
decided to do just that, thus 3NT went down. It's making on any other
lead. If TD/AC decide that other leads are LAs and Reveley ruling is
illegal, 3NT will always be ruled making. Which IMP is wrong.

However, both the TD and AC ruled that there was no LA lead, and ruled
3NT-1. I don't agree with that ruling, and would prefer a weighted
score based upon x% 3NT-1 and 100-x% 3NT made (I don't remember if
there was overtricks on a non-spade lead).

-- 
Kind regards,
Harald Skjæran

> >
> > I'd not heard this term before so I googled it, and here's
> > what I came up with (from an old BLML post):
> >> The eponymous Ted Reveley (who won the main Swiss Teams
> >> event) chaired the appeals committee and, naturally,
> >> issued a "Reveley" ruling (which he defined as a technically
> >> illegal compromise ruling to approximate better to justice).
> >
> > (Just in case others besides me also didn't know this term.)
> >
> > -Bob
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller at nifty.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > blml mailing list
> > blml at amsterdamned.org
> > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>