Re: OLOOT, asked first

Good example, Matthias, and I agree that it is better to keep the law as 
it is.
Herman.

Matthias Berghaus schreef:
> Am 10.06.2016 um 09:40 schrieb Herman De Wael:
>> Well, I can see a problem.
>
> So can I, but other problems...
>
>> 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.
>
> Let us put aside, for the sake of the argument, that probably one of the
> two others would object strongly. Let us say the mass suggestion works
> and the others believe my LHO. Still, I know better. So I would have to
> ignore - on purpose, with malice aforethought, so to speak - the fact
> that it is _not_ , in fact, my lead, _then_ call the TD and try to sell
> him that just after making my "lead" I realized that it was not my lead
> after all. Sure. Got any bridges to sell? Herman, if someone is willing
> to ignore facts, laws, you name it, then we have a problem, as we would
> with any other cheat. The laws are (as you know full well) not designed
> primarily to handle cheaters, but to take care of inadvertant things.
>
> Imagine my LHO, having just become presumed declarer, says to me "your
> lead". He has no stop in a suit of your choice, but partner may, and he
> does not want a lead through that presumed holding. Now this is no
> better than what "your" cheat did, but if the law would let him accept
> the lead (after first lying about whose lead it is...) he would be far
> more likely to get away with it, since  - if no one objects to his
> statement - no TD would show up at the table. And even if he did, what
> now? If we change 47E1, then the play period has begun, so partner`s
> holding _is_ protected, and the TD would be hard pressed to find a law
> that let`s him give another score.
>
> I would like to keep 47E1 as it is....
>
>> Seems a bit harsh on the innocent small
>> mistake made by my opponent.
>
> Mistakes come in different sizes? And that "mistake " may well not be so
> innocent.... I find it just harsh enough to protect people from the ploy
> I described above. I would prefer drawing and quartering, but  could
> settle for having the defenders play double dummy.
>
> Best regards
> Matthias
>
>> Herman.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml