[BLML] OLOOT is back in hand
ehaa at starpower.net
Mon Apr 9 20:20:02 CEST 2012
On Apr 9, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:26:04 -0400, Eric Landau
> <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Robert Frick wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:13:08 -0400, Eric Landau
>>> <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
>>>> Consider a player who is in the tank over a lead when his partner
>>>> blurts out, "Lead a spade." The director (assuming leading some
>>>> other suit is an LA) will rule that the player may not lead a spade
>>>> whether or not he acknowledges having been aware of his partner's
>>>> improper "remark", notwithstanding that this will presumably
>>>> him of the UI he hadn't previously noticed. We do not vary the
>>>> ruling depending on whether the remark, or the faced OLOOT, was
>>>> consciously noted by the partner of the infractor.
>>> Yes, and to continue the analogy, if no one heard the comment, do
>>> we ask
>>> him to say it again?
>> If nobody had heard the comment, nobody would have called the
>> director, so we wouldn't get to ask him anything.
> Okay, Dummy and declarer heard the comment. I take it from your other
> arguments that we presume the player's partner could have heard it,
> so we
> are required to rule as if he did hear it. So the player must be
> aware of
> the comment. We can simply ask the player to honestly say if he
> heard it.
> If he says yes, there is no need to repeat it. If he says no, then we
> insist that his partner say it louder so that he can hear it.
> I am not complaining, I am just saying. Eric is the first to
> stumble on
> the fact that if we might apply L16 to the play of the hand, the
> has a right to know this.
> Of course, Eric also said it is irrelevant whether or not the
> player is in
> the room. So I guess if such a comment gets made while the partner
> is out
> of the room, it definitely needs to be repeated. ("A player does
> not gain
> extra options [not to repeat the statement] that would otherwise be
> legally unavailable just because his partner left the table while
> the deal
> was in progress.") I am pretty sure Eric is not going to rule this
> but he needs to refine the last statement.
A player faces a card in a position to be seen by everyone at the
table. But he and his opponents are agree that his partner could not
have seen it because he was obviously ogling a striking-looking
passer-by, and his attention was indisputably directed away from the
table during the entire time the card was exposed. In my lawbook,
that doesn't matter; the card is played regardless of which way
partner's eyes were pointing. So why should it matter if his eyes
were in the next room?
The alternative would mean that your partner's violating L74C8 could
give you the opportunity for a legal "do-over" that you would not
have had absent partner's infraction.
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net
More information about the Blml