Re: Could have known

Law 73F may not be invoked unless there has been an infraction of one of
Laws 73A to 73E. Since the infraction is a Law 50 penalty card, Tony
Musgrove is correct in stating we should be discussing Law 23, not Law 73F.

If it is legal for the Director to consider ruling a Law 73F adjusted
score, then "could have known" is an easy hurdle for the Director to leap.
But a Law 23 adjusted score requires the Director leaping a much higher
hurdle:

"an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that
this could well damage the non-offending side"

In my opinion "could well damage" is significantly different in meaning
from "could damage". Thus, if I was the Director I would not adjust the
score.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

On Friday, May 20, 2016, Tony Musgrove <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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] <javascript:;> [mailto:
> [email protected] <javascript:;>] 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] <javascript:;>>
> > > Til: "BLML" <[email protected] <javascript:;>>
> > > 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] <javascript:;>
> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected] <javascript:;>
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>

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