[BLML] OLOOT is back in hand

Tony Musgrove ardelm at optusnet.com.au
Mon Apr 9 00:47:51 CEST 2012

> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf
> Of Robert Frick
> Sent: Monday, 9 April 2012 6:49 AM
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:11:10 -0400, Ed Reppert <blackshoe at mac.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Apr 7, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, I am not clear. I see a real problem with requiring a player
> >> show a card to partner and then telling the partner that the card
> >> UI. I
> >> have a real problem with the director creating UI. Jeff said,
> >> perplexingly, that he didn't see a UI problem. Or he doesn't even
> >> understand the problem. If you require a player to put a card on
> >> table
> >> that partner has not seen, you are giving UI. You might as well
> >> tell
> >> the player what the card is.
> >
> > The point is that the player is deemed to have UI if he *could* have
> > seen the card. Whether he actually saw it is irrelevant. This point
> > been made several times already. I'm not sure why, but you don't
seem to
> > get it.
> >
> >> And we all know the probability of the director staying around and
> >> painstakingly analyzing the play of the hand to see if there is any
> >> application of L16.
> >
> > And this is an unnecessary and irrelevant dig at directors in
> Alas, not true. Let's suppose you confirm declarer's right to forbid a
> spade lead, then insist that one defender show the other defender what
> led. Or if he physically refuses, you can solve the problem by just
> telling the defender on lead what the OLOOT is. Or maybe you did that
> ago, whatever.
> Do you painstakingly analyze the defense to make sure there is no L16
> infraction? I believe this is about a 10 minute job requiring you to
> at least as good of skills as declarer. Maybe it is shorter if you
have as
> good of expertise in the use of UI in play and you do for the use of
UI in
> bidding. I doubt the players have that time or skill, so don't count
> them.
> Of course, a director could also assume that declarer's choices are
> to rectify the situation. The director could then leave the table
> following his ruling. In that case, you are giving away free UI when
> force the player to expose that card to his partner. Of course, it is
> that the player is legally entitled to, as he could have just left his
> lead on the table or he could have put it back on the table at any
> (Or maybe it is not UI, as it is a part of the legal procedures of the
> game. That would solve that problem.)

But surely this happens every time declarer forbids a lead in the
suit.  You say "you must not lead a spade until you have lost the lead,
even then you are not allowed to know that partner has the SQ, and also
you are not allowed to know that partner has 2 points in spades"  What
is the problem with this?


Tony (Sydney) 

> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

More information about the Blml mailing list