Re: Could have known
agot <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Organization | Math2 |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Le 23.05.2016 15:01, Herman De Wael a écrit : > > L23 could be viewed in connection to L72B1. A player should not > deliberately infract, even if he's prepared to suffer the penalty. <BIG > SNIP> I think there lies the main problem. We all agree that a player should not deliberately infract (contrast with basketball). But L23 isn't there to penalize players who deliberately infracted, but those who didn't but might have done the same thing, had they decided to infract. Which makes the link rather weak. IMO "could have understood after lengthy analysis that it might be a trap against declarer if declarer thought the way one thinks he could have" doesn't fall within the socpe of L23 ; "could easily have deduced that the penalty would obviously help him" does. The Aussie case is of the former ilk. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml