Re: OLOOT, asked first

Am 12.06.2016 um 18:07 schrieb Robert Frick:
> This law has no deadline for when the OLOOT can be retracted. Did you want to construct one? Not one hour after the game, right?

If you should happen to read L47 in it`s entirety, you would find

2. (a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a
mistaken explanation of an opponent’s call or play and before a
corrected explanation, without further rectification, but only if no
card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be
retracted after dummy has faced any card.
(b) When it is too late to correct a play under (a) the Director may
award an adjusted score.

So, if a card would have been played from "dummy" (which, per E1 may not 
_be_ dummy_) the lead can no longer be retracted, but the Director may 
(and should, if offenders gained) award an adjusted score. So, nobody 
needs to construct a deadline, there already is one....

>
> Really, no deadline. Is anyone going to blindly follow this law where it leads? I don't think so.

Well, where does it lead? It is spelled out, not even in fine print, but 
clearly readable for anyone caring to look for it.

>
> Really, construct a deadline.

Really, no, there is one.

>
> The question then is how far you will follow the law. The lawmakers probably didn't think about declarer putting down hand as dummy. Assuming no intentional lawbreaking, the only remotely equitable deadline is before declarer puts down his hand. And that probably matches the lawmakers' intentions.

One can`t fail to perceive the intention when one reads the complete 
law. It is all there, in plain sight.

>
> There are other places in the laws where rights change after director is called (or probably an irregularity is noted.)

Would you care to mention an example? The one below is invalid, as no 
player has the right to "correct" a card or a call without the TD, ever.

> Such as whether a player can make or retract a call over a mispull.
>
> The support in BLML for making declarer pick up his cards and remain declarer has assumed that declarer is trying to cheat and yet contradictorily that defenders are impeccably ethical. That's illogical.

My "assumption" is that the law is clear, for whatever reason. Since the 
task of writing the 2017 laws is in progress, feel free to contact the 
WBFLC and explain to them why the law should be changed. If you wait too 
long, there will (probably) be another ten year wait.

>
>
>
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:14:14 -0400, David Grabiner <[email protected]> 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.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 6/8/2016 8:46 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
>>
>> I know we talked about it, but was it just hypothetical? Today I got this. Defender asked who was declarer, got a wrong answer, led out of turn, declarer put his hand down as dummy, then the irregularity was noticed and I was called.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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