[BLML] OLOOT is back in hand

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Mon Apr 9 15:38:41 CEST 2012

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 03:59:48 -0400, Thomas Dehn <blml at arcor.de> wrote:

> Bob somehow thinks that adding a 3rd infraction to the first two  
> infractions
> should be rewarded by the director.
> 1.) Player makes OLOOT.
> 2.) Player makes that OLOOT face up (an infraction only if the RA has  
> not opted to allow face up opening leads)
> 3.) Player then retracts that card, violating L41A and L47
> The TD simply tells the player "I am sorry, but you
> cannot withdraw an opening lead out of turn - or generally
> any played card - except when
> instructed to withdraw the opening lead by the director.
> Please put the card back on the table. Next time you
> want to retract a played card, please call the director."

Well, part of the problem is that it is not necessarily a reward. Let's  
supposed declarer just wants to play the hand, or does not trust the  
director spend the 20 minutes or whatever it is to look for use of UI  
during the hand. So you are punishing the nonoffending side. The defender  
might be completely unaware of the UI issues. Then it is a reward to be  
able to show the card to partner.

And of course, if the director mandates showing the card to partner, then  
according to L16 it's AI. So both in theory and practice, you are probable  
rewarding the defense when you insist the OLOOT be put back on the table.

> Thomas
> Jeff Easterson <JffEstrsn at aol.com> wrote:
>> This getting exasperating and I'll make a last attempt before giving
>> up.  I can only guess that Bob is relatively inexperienced and faces the
>> problem for the first time.
>> If I correctly understood the situation is that a defender has made a
>> lead out of turn (it was his partner's lead), and he made it face up and
>> then replaced the card in his hand.  Assuming that is what happened
>> here, for Bob (everyone else knows this) here is the standard (and
>> proper) procedure, at least in my experience and, I assume, the
>> experience of all capable TDs.
>> 1. The TD is called.
>> 2.  The TD instructs the player to replace the card on the table, face  
>> up.
>> 3.  The TD then enumerates/explains, to the declarer his options.
>> 4.  The declarer chooses one of them.
>> 5.  If he chooses to forbid the lead of the suit shown, or demand it,
>> the card (a major penalty card) is replaced i the hand of the player.
>> In my experience this takes something like 2 or 3 minutes but can be
>> faster.  It depends on the fluency of the TD and how long it takes for
>> the declarer to decide.  For all of this time the card has been exposed,
>> on the table.  How can the partner not have seen it - unless he has
>> fallen asleep or is totally drunk.  (But those are other problems which
>> the TD can also solve.)
>> So, how is it possible that the partner does not know what the card
>> was?  Or as Richard says, what's the problem?
>> Ciao, JE
>> Am 08.04.2012 22:49, schrieb Robert Frick:
>> > 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  
>> to
>> >>> show a card to partner and then telling the partner that the card is
>> >>> 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 the
>> >>> table
>> >>> that partner has not seen, you are giving UI. You might as well just
>> >>> 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  
>> has
>> >> 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  
>> general.
>> > 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
>> was
>> > 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
>> long
>> > 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  
>> have
>> > 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  
>> on
>> > them.
>> >
>> > Of course, a director could also assume that declarer's choices are
>> enough
>> > to rectify the situation. The director could then leave the table
>> > following his ruling. In that case, you are giving away free UI when  
>> you
>> > force the player to expose that card to his partner. Of course, it is  
>> UI
>> > 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  
>> time.
>> > (Or maybe it is not UI, as it is a part of the legal procedures of the
>> > game. That would solve that problem.)
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Blml mailing list
>> > Blml at rtflb.org
>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml at rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml


More information about the Blml mailing list