Re: Could have known

BTW, I am referring to L23, (not 73F) my favourite
Law where I can get away with calling cheats
"Probst cheats", and just say "there is no
question of calling your ethics into question,
but the rules say I must consider what a
real cheat would do in your position"

Cheers,

Tony (Sydney)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Herman De Wael
> Sent: Friday, 20 May 2016 7:42 PM
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known
> 
> Vigfús Pálsson schreef:
> > Are we really suggesting to use of law 73F here?
> 
> yes
> 
> > If it is,  then something is missing in this story.
> >
> 
> maybe you did not read the same into it as I did. My question is why it
> would not be ruled such in OZ.
> 
> Let's see (I'm now going on to the original, see further)
> 
> > Well In Iceland,  the ruling is "Next board please"
> >
> > Greetings
> >
> > Vigfus Palsson
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Upprunaleg skilaboð -----
> > Frá: "Tony Musgrove" <[email protected]>
> > Til: "BLML" <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Föstudagur, 20. Maí, 2016 06:34:39
> > Efni: [BLML] Could have known
> >
> >>From the latest ABF Newsletter:
> >
> >                                      8 6
> >                                      A10 8 7 6 2
> >                                      K10 2
> >                                      A Q
> >
> >      9 3                                                          J 4 2
> >      K J 9                                                       5 3
> >      8 4 3                                                      A 9 6
> >     K J 6 3 2                                                10 9 8 5 4
> >
> >                                     A K Q 10 7 5
> >                                    Q 4
> >                                    Q J 7 5
> >                                    7
> > Playing 6S by South, West gets off to sneaky
> > HJ lead.  Rising HA, South will discard heart
> > loser on successful club finesse.  However
> > upon drawing trumps, East discards heart on
> > third spade, but immediately corrects to
> > spade.  Now South feels inclined to play low
> > heart to Q since East's heart is a penalty card.
> > Bad luck, 1 down.
> > So, in OZ, no problem, laughed away, but I
> > presume that in other countries, the "could
> > have known" law would be wheeled out
> > rather quickly.  With what result?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> 
> Let's try to construct a "could have known" story:
> 
> East knows, from the lead, that South has the queen of hearts.
> Let's suppose he knows from the bidding that South has real diamonds.
> So
> there can be no other winner for his side than the Ace of clubs. If
> South still needs it, the queen of clubs is also a trick. So if South
> has the king of hearts as well, there is no more play. So East can
> assume west has the king, and has led a sneaky jack.
> So south may assume East has the king of hearts, and taking a penalty
> card in hearts may lead south to play towards his queen, if there is
> still a choice between two lines (south does not know the club finesse
> is on).
> So from East's perspective, taking a penalty card is a move which might
> lead south to a different, losing line.
> 
> East could certainly have known that taking a penalty card might be to
> his advantage.
> 
> I would certainly rule against, and I don't see why this should be
> different in OZ.
> 
> > Tony (Sydney)
> >
> 
> Herman.
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml


_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml