[BLML] OLOOT is back in hand

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Thu Apr 12 01:58:12 CEST 2012

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:29:06 -0400, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:

> On Apr 9, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:20:02 -0400, Eric Landau
>> <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Yes, but I think now you are concentrating on following the laws and
>> forgetting why they are there. The goal is to protect the nonoffending
>> side from damage. If everyone agrees that he didn't see anything,
>> it's sad
>> if you can't make the good ruling because you have to follow the laws
>> which weren't written for this situation.
> I'd consider it a very bad ruling were I to allow a player to "do
> over" a played card that I wouldn't permit at the adjacent table
> because everyone properly kept their seat.  Sending your partner away
> from the table should not give you extra options in the play. If a
> defender's partner's absence from the table justifies do-overs on the
> grounds that the NOS is not damaged by the consequent UI, why not
> give declarers unlimited do-overs, as they cannot tranmit UI to the
> dummy?  Absent an infraction, an intentionally played card should not
> be subject to retraction at whim, and there's no reason to make a
> special exception for defenders whose partners happen to be absent
> from the table.

I do not think any director would allow any defender to take back a card  
placed in the played position. The laws don't seem very clear on that, but  
that's another issue. The issue here is an OLOOT, which is an infraction.

>> Also, the more relevant situation is when he didn't see the lead
>> because
>> it was behind a screen.
> I don't think it's analogous at all.  Behind screens, you (or anyone
> else in the room) could not have seen partner's card from your proper
> position at the table, thus your presence or absence can't affect
> equity.  You're supposed to be at the table while the board is in
> play, and I reject the notion that heading off to someplace else
> should provoide your side with a legal advantage.

If the player drops a card while his partner is gone, does he gain a legal  
advantage over if his partner had been present? I am challenging your  
general claim that being absent from the table makes no difference for  

More information about the Blml mailing list