Re: OLOOT, asked first

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 15:40:11 -0400, Matthias Berghaus <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

Richard suggested, I think, that a player cannot intentionally lead out of turn after being given the wrong information, because a player cannot intentionally commit an infraction. But that implies the OLOOT is an infraction. And now you are saying that it isn't an infraction? Can you deal with that issue too?
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml