Re: Director, please!
- From: "axman22@xxxxxxxxxxx" <axman22@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 08:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
campboy wrote:
On May 28, 3:53 am, "axma...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <axma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So, if EW argue that there has been an UI infraction I believe that it
suggests a few things. To wit:
[a] by making the assertion EW prove they have information that it is
dangerous to enter the auction on the values they possess
[b] to do so on that basis it is an invitation for NS to take their
best shot which apparently they did
[c] this disregard of the fact qualifies as wild and gambling which
breaks any connection between a possible infraction and result
It doesn't matter whether 2S was wild and/or gambling. The relevant
law for denying redress to the non-offending side for wild or gambling
action is 12C1b, which starts with the words "If, subsequent to the
irregularity...". The irregularity here is the double, and 2S wasn't
subsequent to it.
Pointing to 16B3
3. When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent
who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have
been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when
play ends**. The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C)
if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage
for the offender.
I note that given the conditions at the table, when 2S was called
there was the presumption that he was willing to declare 2SX which is
what happened. Since the end result was the +same+ as the expectation
can there be said to be an advantage? I believe not. But for an
adjusted score such condition [among others] must be fulfilled.
regards
axman
.
- References:
- Re: Director, please!
- From: campboy
- Re: Director, please!
- Prev by Date: Re: Do you open this hand 1S?
- Next by Date: Re: Do you open this hand 1S?
- Previous by thread: Re: Director, please!
- Next by thread: Re: Help with a simple suit combination
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
