Re: OLOOT, asked first
Matthias Berghaus <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Am 11.06.2016 um 21:11 schrieb Steve Willner: > On 2016-06-11 3:06 PM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> 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. > As stated in L16D. Which would seem to imply that the card would be UI > to West, East being the offender for the LOOT. If "without further > rectification" cancels that, why doesn't it also cancel any UI > implications for South? Well, if N/S did something wrong in order to have that card retracted etc, then N/S are the offenders.... > > You see why I'm having trouble with this? What everyone thinks ought to > happen doesn't seem to agree with the written text. I understand that quite well, yes, but have to admit that - on a warm June evening at half past 10 pm with a good wine by my side - I am too lazy to look it up... I am sure I could find it tomorrrow, but am going to play a tournament, so if nobody found it till Monday I promise to search for it. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml