Re: Could have known

agot schreef:
> Le 22.05.2016 10:47, Herman De Wael a écrit :
>> I was in fact referring to L23
>> Herman (egg off-face)
>
> AG : IMO L23 applies when the penalty itself might harm the innocent
> side, like when a player holding a weak hand bars partner. That's a
> situation which the infractor could have foreseen.
>

Well, in the example, the penalty harmed the innocent side.

> I've never heard it applied to how the innocent side manages what
> follows from the penalty. This is much more difficult to foresee, and
> for this reason "could have known" seldom applies.
>

No, you have never seen it, which is why it's an interesting topic on blml.

> For example, if a player opens light in order to make a OOOT penalty
> active, and if it backfires, would you apply "could have known" ? I
> wouldn't.
>

I don't understand this example, but it has no bearing on the question 
whether L23 applies or not.
L23 could be viewed in connection to L72B1. A player should not 
deliberately infract, even if he's prepared to suffer the penalty. Here, 
the penalty for the non-established revoke is nil, and the penalty for 
the penalty card is very small. If partner gains the lead the contract 
is down already, so there are no problems with lead penalty, and the 
obligation to play a card one would always play is also non-harmful. 
That makes it a prime candidate for the "could have knonw".

Herman.
> Best regards,
>
>
>     Alain
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml