rfrick at rfrick.info
Tue Jun 12 15:02:55 CEST 2012
I can't resolve the conflict. RHO asks who is on lead. I think it is him.
He leads. I put down my hand as dummy. Now someone points out the OLOOT. I
am supposed to be declarer now that my hand has been shown to everyone?
The punishment doesn't fit the crime. RHO has committed the real
infraction. Have I actually committed an infraction? I was wrong about who
was playing the hand, but RHO didn't know either. I didn't have to answer
RHO's question, I was just trying to be nice. (And this resolution also
violates the smaller let's-play-bridge principle.)
I also can't get to that ruling. The laws say I become dummy.
It is not near as bad if I am dummy and LHO gets to select a new opening
lead knowing my hand. But still the punishment doesn't fit the crime (if
there was a crime). And if I expose part of my hand, I am going to be one
very angry bridge player if the director makes me expose the rest of my
hand before letting LHO lead whatever he wants.
But I can't get to that ruling either. If I am dummy, my partner
presumably is the declarer. So RHO is on lead.
In my resolution, which is really good IMO, RHO retracts the lead, but RHO
is still on lead and the sight of now-dummy is UI. The punishment fits the
crime. It is not easy for players to intentionally exploit this
resolution. (And I think it is even better if the right to accept the lead
and be dummy disappears when the OLOOT is noted.)
I can get to that ruling using the laws. But allowing RHO to retract his
lead, then de facto forcing him to lead that same card... that flagrantly
violates the intent of L47E1.
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard <roger-eymard at orange.fr>
> Hi all
> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads his
> 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
> so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy
> 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
> only in case of spontaneous LOOT.
> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted
> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an
> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted
> his LHO in these circumstances."
> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead to
> 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.
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
The end of one day is always the start of a next. *
*This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012
More information about the Blml