[BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Tue Apr 17 03:19:18 CEST 2012


On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:18:55 -0400, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:

> On Apr 11, 2012, at 7:52 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:28:07 -0400, Harald Berre Skjæran
>> <harald.skjaran at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Den 16:17 9. april 2012 skrev Robert Frick <rfrick at rfrick.info>
>>> følgende:
>>>> I am not sure if you were going in this direction...
>>>>
>>>> Suppose a player makes a face-up OLOOT that partner could not
>>>> possibly
>>>> have seen. I assume that declarer gets the option to accept the
>>>> lead.
>>>>
>>>> Then it seems totally wrong to treat the card as a penalty card.
>>>
>>> If declarer accepts the lead, the card is played, and it can't be a
>>> penalty card.
>>>
>>> I suppose you mean that it's treated as a penalty card if declarer
>>> refuses the lead.
>>> I don't know why you mean this card shouldn't be treated as a penalty
>>> card. Please explain.
>>>
>>> "Any" card put face up by a defender that isn't played becomes a
>>> penalty card.
>>
>> I don't see why you say this. Isn't the law really clear that it is
>> only a
>> penalty card if it could be seen by partner?
>
> We intend that if a defender starts to detach a card but replaces it
> before anyone else could possibly see it and plays another, that's
> OK.  If he puts it on the table in plain sight, however, it's played
> and he can't change it.  So we need a law that defines the point in
> between those two where the card becomes played, the "played
> position".  There's no reason to want the played position to be
> defined drastically differently from table to table.
>
> L45C1 defines that played position as "held so that it is possible
> for his partner to see its face".  Does that mean "possible" under
> ideal or presumed circumstances -- partner in his proper position at
> the table and paying attention -- or possible given the specific
> exigencies of the particular action?  If we take it to mean the
> latter, we're stuck defining what those "specific exigencies" are.
> In another room seems obviously disqualifying, but what about a
> couple of steps away at the water fountain?  What if partner appears
> to be asleep? -- does it matter if he snores?  What if we stipuate
> the his attention was fixed on a good-looking passer-by?
>
> Given the purpose of defining a "played position", and given the
> difficulties raised by the "actual partner under actual
> circumstances" interpretation of the defintion, it would seem far
> preferable to adapt the alternative interpretation, in which
> "partner" refers to a presumptively "well-behaved" partner who always
> does what he's supposed to, i.e. keeps his seat and pays attention,
> rather than the actual third opponent occupying the seat across the
> table that day.

A thoughtful answer. And maybe a good solution for now. But notice what (I  
think) is happening.

L49, a card becomes a penalty card "when a defender's card is in a  
position in which his partner could possibly see its face..."

L54C1, a defender's card must be played when it is "held so that it is  
possible for his partner to see its face"

The two are essentially identical. Right? With good reason. Once a  
defender's partner can see a card, it becomes a penalty card; if it is  
that player's turn to play, the card must be played.

Did you really want to interpret L49 the same way you interpret L54C1? I  
am guessing not. If you give one interpretation to L54C1, because you like  
that interpretion, and a different interpretation to L49, then you are not  
being consistent. And you are not reading the lawbook and then trying to  
follow it, you are deciding how you want to rule and then rereading the  
lawbook.

And you are doing this because no one noticed problems with L54. All I am  
asking is that such problems be fixed for 2017.


More information about the Blml mailing list