Re: OLOOT, asked first

If, in similar cases, a card is retracted, (which means that either it 
was a revoke, or something happened which made the TD allow the player 
in question to retract it) it is always AI to the non-offenders, and UI 
to the offenders. For example, in the case of a non-established revoke, 
the retracted card is UI to the revoking side, and AI to the other side, 
as it is information gleaned from an action of the opps. On a general 
basis, if my opps do something without my side having caused any of it I 
may use any information I can gather.

Am 11.06.2016 um 20:43 schrieb Steve Willner:
> On 2016-06-10 3:46 PM, Sven Pran wrote:
>> So information from the withdrawn card is AI to East and West, and UI to
>> North and South
> Several others answered the same, and it's what I would have thought.
> My problem is I can't find text to justify it.
>
> The NS incorrect answer about whose lead it was _ought_ to be an
> infraction, but I don't see which Law it violates.  In contrast, there
> are specific Laws (21B, 47E2) dealing with incorrect information about
> partnership understandings.  I'm happy, though, with a general principle
> that when the Laws give someone the right to ask a question, giving an
> incorrect answer is an infraction.
>
> Does "without further rectification" mean the LOOT wasn't an infraction
> at all?  More generally, why doesn't "without further rectification"
> apply to both sides?
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>

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