[BLML] OLOOT is back in hand

Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net
Mon Apr 16 15:36:20 CEST 2012

On Apr 15, 2012, at 6:56 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> Nigel Guthrie:
> >If partner is blind or outside the room, I agree
> >with Richard that it would normally be
> >impossible for him to see the exposed card
> [snip]
> Richard Hills:
> In the normal situation of four sighted players
> sitting at the table, Edgar Kaplan had a rule-of-
> thumb to assist Directors in applying Law 45C1.
> Edgar observed that defenders often played a
> card in two stages:
> (1) card detached from hand to be held
> vertically in front of the defender, then
> (2) card tilted towards the horizontal en route
> to placement on the table.
> At stage (1) declarer and/or dummy could
> often see the face of the card, because they
> were sitting at a 90 degree angle to the
> defender. But for the defender's partner who
> was sitting at a 180 degree angle, it was
> _impossible_ to see the face of the vertical
> card.
> But once stage (2) happened, even if the
> defender rapidly reversed the motion of the
> card, it was _possible_ for the defender's
> partner to have seen the face of the tilted
> card.
That's fine, but fails to advance the discussion.  The question  
Robert raises is whether we can use this guideline (or its  
equivalent) when the "normal situation of four sighted players  
sitting at the table" doesn't obtain, or whether we need some  
entirely different approach, and, if so, what it might be, beyond  
"mind reading" the self-serving contention that a given player, for  
whatever reason, had sufficiently deviated from the "normal  
situation" to have been "unable" (itself to be defined -- does lack  
of attention relate to "ability"?) to see the card.

Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net

More information about the Blml mailing list