[BLML] LOOT

Roger Eymard roger-eymard at orange.fr
Mon Jun 11 11:31:36 CEST 2012


----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>

To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml at rtflb.org>

Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 12:20 AM

Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT



> Definition: "Play period - commences when the opening lead on a board is

> faced;"

Agreed. L22B1 ("The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the 
auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out 
of turn then see Law 54). The interval between the end of the auction and 
the end of the auction period is designated the Clarification Period.") adds 
some clarification : when an opening lead is faced, whether regular or out 
of turn, the auction period is closed, and the play period has started, the 
opening lead being the first card played.



> Law 54E was added in 2007 to make it absolutely clear that an attempt by a

> player on the declaring side to make an opening lead shall (instead) be

> treated as a card exposed during the auction. Consequently the play period

> only commences on a faced opening lead by a defender.

Agreed again. The case about which I asked for help from BLML experts is : a 
faced OLOOT suggested by declarer's side, followed by the presumed declarer 
spreading her hand.



> The Director can, and should apply Law 47E1 if an opening lead out of turn

> is made by presumed declarer's RHO if this player was mistakenly informed 
> by

> an opponent that it was his turn to lead, (implicitly) provided that no 
> card

> has subsequently been faced by presumed declarer or dummy. Law 47E1

> effectively declares such leads to be NULL and VOID.

Sorry, I cannot find in L47E1 ("A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may 
be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly 
informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play 
may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances.") neither any 
implicit provision about subsequently faced card by presumed declarer or 
dummy, nor any assertion making the faced OLOOT "null and void". There are 
other cases in the Laws where a played card may be retracted by the player 
without any rectification (apart L16D in some of them) : L47D, L47E2, L53C, 
L62C1 for instance. In all these cases, the Laws deal with the retraction of 
played cards, and never describe their play as "null and void". When L16D 
applies, the played and subsequently retracted card is surely neither null 
nor void. Does that imply that it is null and void when L16D is not 
mentioned ? IMHO, no.

> However, this discussion is about the situation when presumed declarer 
> faces

> his hand subsequent to the OLOOT by his RHO, and then Law 54A applies, 
> there

> is no reference here to neither Law 53 nor Law 47, and the implication is

> that play continues with presumed declarer as dummy and his partner as

> declarer. Allowing the opening lead to be retracted is no option.

The point for which I found in L54B ("When a defender faces the opening lead 
out of turn declarer may accept the irregular lead as provided in Law 53, 
and dummy is spread in accordance with Law 41.") a reference to L47E1 via a 
reference to L53 ("Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct 
lead (but see Law 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either 
defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that 
effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the irregular 
lead (but see C). If there is no such acceptance or play, the Director will 
require that the lead be made from the correct hand (and see Law 47B).") is 
about the acceptance of the OLOOT. That's why IMHO the faced OLOOT is not 
accepted by the action of spreading her cards by the presumed declarer, and 
why the OLOOTer is allowed to retract her lead. Am I wrong because of 
understanding in L47E1 "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be 
retracted without further rectification" as "The OLOOTer is allowed at her 
free will to maintain or to retract her card" ?

> So what would be the situation if we could apply Law 47E1 also in this

> situation?

>

> As I said above Law 47E1 effectively makes the lead NULL and VOID with the

> consequence that play period has not yet commenced.

> This means that all presumed declarer's (faced) cards must be treated as

> cards exposed prior to play period for which Law 24 applies. This leads to

> the following scenario (with South as presumed declarer):

>

> East is told by South that it is his lead and faces a presumed opening 
> lead

> after which South faces his hand presuming that he is dummy.

> Now the Director applies L47E1 and lets East take back his "lead" while

> South's hand remains faced on the table for the time being as cards 
> exposed

> prior to play period.

> West then makes his opening lead, South takes back his thirteen cards and

> North faces his hand as Dummy.

> The information from seeing South's cards is AI to both East and West.

>

> Is there anybody who seriously considers this to be how the situation 
> shall

> be handled?

As I wrote above, IMHO, the faced OLOOT is not "null and void". The play 
period has started.

Best regards

Roger

>> Roger Eymard

>> Do you mean that whatever the reason of the faced OLOOT, when declarer

>> spreads her hand, the OLOOT is accepted ?

>> IMHO, the reference to L53 in L54B, and the reference to L47E1 in L53A do

>> preclude that. In case of a suggested (by a player of declarer's side)

> faced

>> OLOOT, L54 is therefore limited by L47E1. The OLOOT is not accepted as a

>> consequence of the (presumed) declarer spreading her hand (and becoming

>> dummy - nothing in the Laws against L54A), and may be retracted.

>> IMHO, "rubbish" is not appropriate here.

>>

>> But then what happens ?

>> Does "may" in L47E1 mean that the faced OLOOTer has the right to choose 
>> to

>> retract her card or to choose to maintain it, and that the director must

>> instruct her that way?

>> If so, and if the OLOOTer decides to retract her card, does the opening

> lead

>> belong to the "normal" opener ("presumed" declarer's LHO) ?

>>

>> A deal from real life :

>> North: 52

>> AJ10943

>> 8

>> AQ42

>> West: J9743 East: AKQ10

>> K8 765

>> A962 KQJ5

>> K7 J8

>> South: 86

>> Q2

>> 10743

>> 109653

>> East is the presumed declarer in 4S. 1 down if everything follows

> normally.

>> But East suggests to North to lead, and spreads her hand, after the lead

> is

>> faced, becoming dummy.

>> If the opening lead remains in North's hand, 4S just made.

>> If North is allowed to retract her lead, and give back the opening lead 
>> to

>> South, 1 down again.

>> Note that if North is not allowed to retract her lead, L23 provides the

> director

>> with the mean to adjust the score to 1 down (East, when advising North to

>> make the opening lead, could have known that any value in heart or club 
>> in

>> West's hand would be protected).

>>

>> Roger

>>

>> ----- Original Message -----

>> From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>

>> To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml at rtflb.org>

>> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 7:59 AM

>> Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT

>>

>>

>> >> Robert Frick

>> >> Again, there is an OLOOT by a misinformed defender, with LHO then

>> putting

>> >> down his hand as dummy. The OLOOT is retracted. Now what? I think...

>> >>

>> > [Sven Pran]

>> > Rubbish.

>> > Where in Law 54 do you find any possibility for the (misinformed)

> defender

>> > to retract his OLOOT? He cannot. Law 54 is a specific law that applies

> on

>> > OLOOT. If there seems to be any conflict with other, more general laws

> on

>> > lead out of turn then Law 54 takes precedence.

>> >

>> > But if you with OLOOT mean that the defender has placed his card face

>> down

>> > (not faced) on the table then no opening lead has been made (by this

>> > defender) and presumed declarer has exposed all his cards during the

>> > auction

>> > so Law 24 applies.

>> >

>> >>

>> >> 1. While the player who put down his hand as dummy *was* the

>> "presumed

>> >> declarer", his partner is now the presumed declarer. So the OLOOTer is

> on

>> >> lead.

>> >>

>> > [Sven Pran]

>> > More rubbish.

>> > If the OLOOT was indeed made then it cannot be retracted once presumed

>> > declarer has accepted it, for instance by facing his cards as dummy, 
>> > and

>> > the

>> > "OLOOTer" Is no longer on the lead, he has made his lead, period.

>> >

>> >>

>> >> 2. I am going to rule that L16D applies to his sight of the dummy. So

> the

>> >> OLOOTer pretty much has to lead the same card.

>> >>

>> > [Sven Pran]

>> > Still more rubbish.

>> > Either presumed declarer has become dummy (L54A) or his cards have

>> been

>> > exposed during the auction (L24). In neither case is L16D applicable.

>> >

>> >>

>> >> 3. Spreading his hand was not a rectification. As defined, only the

>> > director can

>> >> do rectifications. So... the player who was supposed to be declarer 
>> >> can

>> >> display his hand and become dummy before the irregularity is noted.

>> After

>> >> the irregularity is noted, he cannot do this.

>> >

>> > [Sven Pran]

>> > Sure he can, just read (and understand) Law 54A

>> >

>> >>

>> >> None of the laws are exactly what I would like to make these rulings.

>> >> But,

>> >> compared to other situations the laws were not built to handle, this

>> >> seems

>> > to

>> >> be a relatively trouble-free way to get to a good ruling.

>> >>

>> >> Bob

>> >>

>> >>

>> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:33:39 -0400, Roger Eymard <roger-

>> >> eymard at orange.fr>

>> >> wrote:

>> >>

>> >> > I have not found anything in the Laws which says that the lead

> remains

>> >> > to the OLOOTer after she retracts her faced lead. IMHO, not only

>> >> > L47E.1.

>> >> > would be meaningless if not to give back the opening lead to the

> normal

>> >> > opener (normal opener is defined in L41A as the defender on presumed

>> >> > declarer's left, and (presumed) declarer is defined in the

>> >> > definitions),

>> >> > but it would be in sheer contradiction with L45C.1. to allow the

>> >> > OLOOTer to retract her faced lead and to lead another card.

>> >> >

>> >> > Cases where a player may retract of her own free will a played card

> and

>> >> > then play another card without further rectification result always

> from

>> >> > the play of a card by an opponent. The spreading of her hand by the

>> >> > (presumed) declarer is not the play of any card.

>> >> >

>> >> > Isn't the meaningfulness of each Law, and the coherence of all the

> Laws

>> >> > together the touchstone for applying them ?

>> >> >

>> >> > So, am I right , in such a case of OLOOT suggested by declarer's

> side,

>> >> > followed by presumed declarer spreading her hand, to allow the

>> OLOOTer

>> >> > to maintain or to retract her lead, and, if she retracts, to give 
>> >> > the

>> >> > lead to the "normal" opener, who will lead with full knowledge of 
>> >> > now

>> >> > dummy's hand ?

>> >> >

>> >> > Roger

>> >> >

>> >> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick"

> <rfrick at rfrick.info>

>> >> > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>; "Roger Eymard"

>> >> > <roger-eymard at orange.fr>

>> >> > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:00 AM

>> >> > Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT

>> >> >

>> >> >

>> >> >> You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand

> and

>> >> >> becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is

>> on

>> >> >> lead? I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of

> turn.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once

> he

>> >> >> sees the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to

> that

>> >> >> ruling. I am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really

> small

>> >> >> minority on that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using

> the

>> >> >> laws.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> Thanks.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> Bob

>> >> >>

>> >> >>

>> >> >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard

>> >> >> <roger-eymard at orange.fr> wrote:

>> >> >>

>> >> >>> Hi all

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer 
>> >> >>> spreads

>> > his

>> >> >>> hand.

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may 
>> >> >>> spread

>> > his

>> >> >>> hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and

>> in

>> >> >>> doing

>> >> >>> so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand.

>> Dummy

>> >> >>> becomes

>> >> >>> declarer."

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an

>> opponent

>> >> >>> that it

>> >> >>> was his turn to lead ?

>> >> >>> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that

> L54A

>> >> >>> applies

>> >> >>> only in case of spontaneous LOOT.

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted

>> >> >>> without

>> >> >>> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an

>> >> >>> opponent

>> >> >>> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be

>> >> >>> accepted by

>> >> >>> his LHO in these circumstances."

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the

> lead

>> >> >>> to her

>> >> >>> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ?

>> >> >>> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an

>> >> >>> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the

> LOOTer

>> >> >>> to

>> >> >>> retract her card.

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply

>> >> >>> against

>> >> >>> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous,

> but

>> > no

>> >> >>> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of

> the

>> >> >>> leading side with the full view of dummy.

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice.

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> Roger

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> _______________________________________________

>> >> >>> Blml mailing list

>> >> >>> Blml at rtflb.org

>> >> >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

>> >> >>

>> >> >>

>> >> >> -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. *

>> >> >>

>> >> >> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012

>> >> >

>> >>

>> >>

>> >> --

>> >> The end of one day is always the start of a next. *

>> >>

>> >> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012

>> >> _______________________________________________

>> >> 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

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Blml mailing list

> Blml at rtflb.org

> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml



More information about the Blml mailing list