[BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Sven Pran svenpran at online.no
Fri Aug 2 12:25:08 CEST 2013


IMO there is no such thing as an opening lead out of turn once another
opening lead has been made whether in turn or out of turn. The "second
OLOOT" is simply a card exposed by a defender to be treated under Law 49.

Declarer selects his option on penalty cards at the time offender's partner
has or obtains the lead if the offender still has penalty card(s) at this
time. The choice takes effect on that lead, not on some future lead.
(Except of course that a prohibition lasts so long as the offender's partner
continuously maintains the lead.) 

> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] På vegne av
> Herman De Wael
> Sendt: 2. august 2013 11:41
> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Emne: Re: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
> 
> You have a very strange way of thinking, Sven.
> I follow one line of reasoning, and the result is somewhat strange. You
don't
> like that, and you conclude that you must then follow some other line
which is
> equally strange.
> 
> Why is an OLOOT not an OLOOT - just because in one of the options, there
is a
> strange effect which we have never seen before, but which does not
otherwise
> create any problems. LHO has a lead restriction against hearts, a
restriction
> which will only be applied in some future trick.
> So what?
> Just because we've never seen this one before, does not mean that it is
> impossible to administer!
> 
> Herman.
> 
> Sven Pran schreef:
> > You must be confusing the laws?
> > IF the "second OLOOT" should be treated under Law 54 (and I don't
> > agree with you that it should), and presumed declarer decides to
> > become dummy then he
> >
> > has accepted this OLOOT as the opening lead.
> >
> > And as the prohibition against leading a card in the suit of the first
> > OLOOT only applied to the original LHO and only for as long as he
> > maintained the
> >
> > lead, this prohibition is now void because another player has
> > subsequently
> >
> > had (i.e. been given) the lead.
> >
> > This doesn't make sense to me, that is why I prefer to treat the
> > "second OLOOT" under Law 49, maintaining the selected rectification
> > for the original OLOOT and just adding further rectification for the
second
> card exposed.
> >
> >
> >> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] På vegne
> >> av Herman De Wael
> >> Sendt: 2. august 2013 09:44
> >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> >> Emne: Re: [BLML] OLOOTer, O Laughter [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
> >>
> >> I believe that the "second OLOOT" should enable (presumed) declarer
> >> to become dummy. After all, the laws clearly differentiate between an
> >> opening lead and a penalty card before the opening lead. When a card
> >> is show
> > during
> >> the auction, there is no option of becoming declarer, but the penalty
> >> card options are still there.
> >> Thus, when the "second OLOOT" is a card (of honour rank) dropped on
> >> the table, this merely adds another possible suit that it is possible
> >> to ask
> >
> > or refuse
> >> (and in the case of ask - the first suit was already refused and the
> > penalty card
> >> already retracted, so the refuse stays, evenif it would have been
> > comprised in
> >> an ask of the socond one).
> >> But when the second card is indeed led, what other law to apply than
> > OLOOT,
> >> which includes the possibility of becoming dummy (with the original
> > refusal
> >> being enforced and thus applicable only when the LHO gains the lead).
> >>
> >>
> >> Richard HILLS schreef:
> >>> UNOFFICIAL
> >>>> The Chief Director of Australia, Sean Mullamphy, told me this true
> >>>> story from the recent Australian National Championships (ANC) in
> > Adelaide.
> >>>>
> >>>> Declarer’s RHO perpetrated an opening lead out of turn of a heart.
> >>>> After the five options were explained to declarer, she chose to put
> >>>> her LHO on lead, but prohibit LHO from leading a heart. Before LHO
> >>>> could comply, RHO chose a second OLOOT of a diamond.
> >>>>
> >>>> How should you rule?
> >>> “You are neither a smith nor a jeweller, Professor Tolkien. So what
> >>> qualifies you to write about the forging of rings?”
> >>> I am neither Kojak nor Grattan. So what qualifies me to write about
> >>> Law
> > 54A?
> >>> “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.”
> >>> After the first OLOOT of a heart card, declarer eschewed becoming
> dummy.
> >>> However RHO was required to retract the heart card, but then chose a
> >>> second OLOOT of a diamond card. Did declarer then have a renewed
> >>> option to change her mind and become dummy? Or is “second OLOOT” a
> >
> >>> misnomer for a simple Penalty Card?
> >>> What’s the problem?
> >>> Richard Hills
> >>> UNOFFICIAL
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please
> >>> advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.
> >>> This email, including attachments, may contain confidential,
> >>> sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any
> >>> review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this
> >>> information
> >
> >>> by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> >>> prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the
> >>> Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be
> >>> viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
> >>> http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> -
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Blml mailing list
> >>> Blml at rtflb.org
> >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No virus found in this message.
> >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> >>> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6543 - Release Date:
> >>> 08/01/13
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6544 - Release Date:
> > 08/01/13
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml




More information about the Blml mailing list