Legal Implications
According to Morehead's article, "The laws committees have considered the Alcatraz Coup too unusual a case to be dealt with specifically, but it is no less typical of rare irregularities that committees must consider when a new code of laws is being prepared." However since 1973 when that article was published, there have been changes in the Laws, so that now a remedy is available for use of the Alcatraz coup.
The most relevant change is Law 16C2 (Law 16D2 in the 2007 Laws Of Duplicate Bridge), which defines information gained from either side's legal withdrawal of a card as unauthorized for the offending side. (Note: although the revoking side may correct its revoke, a revoke has nevertheless occurred and therefore there is an "offending side.") It also states that "A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information." In other words, even if the coup is executed inadvertently, the declarer may not take advantage of knowing the position of the queen; if he does so, the tournament director may adjust the result accordingly.
Also, a deliberate infraction of the Laws is normally viewed as a serious violation of the Proprieties; that exposes deliberate attempters of the Coup to further sanctions.
Read more about this topic: Alcatraz Coup
Famous quotes containing the words legal and/or implications:
“No oppression is so heavy or lasting as that which is inflicted by the perversion and exorbitance of legal authority.”
—Joseph Addison (1672–1719)
“When it had long since outgrown his purely medical implications and become a world movement which penetrated into every field of science and every domain of the intellect: literature, the history of art, religion and prehistory; mythology, folklore, pedagogy, and what not.”
—Thomas Mann (1875–1955)