Re: OLOOT, asked first

Herman's hypothetical:

.....Well, I can see a problem. Imagine my LH opponent, having just become
presumed declarer, says to me "your lead". I know it's my partner's
lead, but I say nothing, bang down the first card that comes to hand and
wait for him to start putting down dummy, then call director and ask to
be allowed to play double dummy. Seems a bit harsh on the innocent small
mistake made by my opponent.....

Richard Hills:

The key issue is "I know it's my partner's lead".

Law 72B1:

"A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is
prescribed rectification he is willing to accept."

Richard Hills:

In this hypothetical scenario Hypothetical Herman is willing to accept the
prescribed rectification of defending double-dummy. But that does not
excuse Hypothetical Herman from his intentional OLOOT, a "must not"
infraction of Law 72B1.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

On Friday, June 10, 2016, Herman De Wael <[email protected]> wrote:

> Matthias Berghaus schreef:
> > Am 10.06.2016 um 03:27 schrieb Robert Frick:
> >> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:14:14 -0400, David Grabiner <
> [email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Law 47E1:
> >>>
> >>> 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 this
> >>> circumstance.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore, assuming the wrong answer came from declarer or dummy,
> declarer
> >>> cannot accept this lead by spreading his hand. Declarer picks up his
> hand, the
> >>> correct defender leads, and the defenders can play double-dummy.
> >> Declarer picks up his hand? That seems overly kind. Does a retracted
> OLOOT end the auction period?
> >
> > Who cares? A specific law (here 47E1) overrides any general law. "A lead
> > or play may not be accepted by his LHO in this circumstance". So
> > presumed declarer remains declarer since he can`t become dummy. Overly
> > kind? The defenders are going to defend double dummy. If this is kind...
> > If you meant kind to the defenders, well, they are the non-offending
> > side here, having been misinformed about the lead, so why should they
> > have a problem?
> >
>
> Well, I can see a problem. Imagine my LH opponent, having just become
> presumed declarer, says to me "your lead". I know it's my partner's
> lead, but I say nothing, bang down the first card that comes to hand and
> wait for him to start putting down dummy, then call director and ask to
> be allowed to play double dummy. Seems a bit harsh on the innocent small
> mistake made by my opponent.
> Herman.
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected] <javascript:;>
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml