[BLML] OLOOT is back in hand

Jeff Easterson JffEstrsn at aol.com
Sat Apr 7 16:38:11 CEST 2012


Am 07.04.2012 04:20, schrieb Robert Frick:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:42:34 -0400, Ed Reppert<blackshoe at mac.com>  wrote:
>
>> On Apr 6, 2012, at 9:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
>>
>>> Bob, who thought this wasn't simple.
>> Bob thinks nothing in the Laws of Bridge is simple. Bob's mission in
>> life seems to be to find problems with the laws, even where they don't
>> exist.
> Actually, my well-stated mission was to point out the problems with the
> laws, so that they will be constructed by a better procedure. Given that,
> my goal is to find ways of making the laws better.
Good idea.  But it would be better to find real problems and ones other 
TDs also see; not exclusively problems for you (only).
>
> Those people who pretend the laws are better than they are don't help my
> cause. So we end up arguing.
No one does. The argument generally has a quite different basis, often 
due to your misinterpretation of the rules or misreading of them.
>
> Here, you haven't addressed the worst case scenario -- declarer insists on
> a spade lead, and now you require the defender to show his card to his
> partner then put it back in his hand, then (presumably) tell him that
> information is UI.
Example of my assertion above.  (1) The card has been on the table all 
the time so you don't require the defender to show his card to partner. 
and (2) where do you find an indication in the TBR that this is UI?  The 
card has been on the table all of the time and seen by all.  Where is 
the UI?
>   You think that is irrelevant? No one is going to hold
> that opinion. No one is going to like the director intentionally creating
> UI.
Your whole argument is irrelevant and I'd be very surprised if anyone 
disagrees with this.
>
> I grant your right to rule that way. But the prelude to L54 doesn't say
> that a face up lead that has been retracted should be put face down on the
> table.
So what?  It may not be retracted and remains face up on the table.  
What, you can't find a passage in the TBR specifically insisting on 
this?  There are many situations that are so obvious (apparently to 
everyone but you) that they are not specifically mentioned - to do so 
would probably increase the size of the TBR to over 1000 pages and there 
would still be some missing.  See my example in an earlier posting 
concerning the player who throws all of his/her cards out of the 
window.  Not specifically discussed in the TBR.  So you find it 
impossible to rule and want it included in the next TBR and thus write 
to blml advocating this?
>   I doubt that that the WBFLC would clarify the law that way or
> rewrite the lawbook that way. If they did -- fine, then at least it would
> be clear that we directors are supposed to do this apparently absurd thing.
I suspect that it is abundantly clear to everyone but you.

Ciao,  JE
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>> I gather from all this that presumed declarer's RHO made a faced opening
>> lead out of turn after the auction was over, there having been three
>> consecutive passes in turn. In that case
>>
>> 1. It does not matter whether his partner has seen the card or not. It
>> does not matter whether *anyone* has seen it. It only matters that
>> someone *could* have seen it.
>> 2. The offender has no legal right to pick the card up and put it back
>> in his hand.
>> 3. The offender shall be required to put his card back on the table,
>> face up. The claim that the TD thereby creates UI for offender's partner
>> is irrelevant.
>> 4. The TD shall offer presumed declarer his five options. Now
>>     a. If declarer chooses to become dummy he faces his hand, his partner
>> becomes declarer, the OLOOT stands, there is no further rectification.
>>     b. If declarer does not choose to become dummy then
>>        i. He may accept the lead, see dummy, and then play from his hand,
>> playing from dummy last.
>>       ii. He may refuse the lead, in which case the card becomes a major
>> penalty card, the lead reverts to the correct leader, and Law 50D
>> applies.
>>
>> This is a simple, everyday ruling. I know that blmlers seem to think the
>> purpose of this list is to find ways to complicate things that aren't
>> complicated, but this one is just ridiculous.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml at rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>



More information about the Blml mailing list