Re: OLOOT, asked first

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:00:10 -0400, Matthias Berghaus <[email protected]> wrote:

> Am 13.06.2016 um 16:58 schrieb Robert Frick:
>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 05:23:05 -0400, Matthias Berghaus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>> Maybe that's not as obvious as I thought. A player makes a mispull, LHO calls, and then the director is called. The mispull is corrected. Can LHO change his call? Without rectification?
>
> The rights did not change. A player just has to call the TD to have them
> enacted, even if that player knows the law(s). And "without
> rectification" depends on where you sit. For the mispulling any
> retracted call by their opps would be UI, for the other side AI, but
> there are no other consequences if the UI is not acted upon.

Okay, let me get this straight. You go to the table, a player claims a mispull, and you offer LHO the opportunity to make and then retract a call, with the call being UI to the mispulling side?

That is really incredible. I mean that literally.






>
>>
>> A player makes a mispull. The director is called. LHO then makes a call. Law 9 applies?
>
> Sure, but if you are going to argue by way of L9B1c, may I draw your
> attention to L9B2?
>
>>   If LHO doesn't have the right to call now, did LHO have the right to call before?
>
> His right to call is temporarily suspended, as described in9B2.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> You are on lead against 3NT with 6 running diamond tricks. Your partner revokes, not following suit. Your best strategy is to play as quickly as possible to the next trick.
>
> This is double-edged at best, as it establishes the revoke. If you want
> to hide partner`s revoke, my suggestion is to go to a barber next
> morning, as I would not want to look at myself in a mirror, so shaving
> could get hazardous. Furthermore, such conduct would be in breach of
> L73D1 , 74 A3 and 74C7, to name only the most obvious ones.


Those laws are irrelevant. As in, don't have anything to do with things.

Okay, I will change the example. A player realizes his partner has revoked. He clearly has the right to play and esttablish that revoke.  According to you, the play must be in tempo. Okay, THE PLAY IS IN TEMPO.

Instead, the director is called to the table after the trick is completed, but before anyone has played to the next trick.

You let the player lead to the next trick, establishing the revoke? Really? If you say yes, I will think you did not understand the question. Really, you would? Law 9B1(c) would be on your side. You could actually follow the rules and let the player lead to the next trick to establish the revoke.





>
>>
>> Same, except director is called and explains the options. You can still lead to the next trick? Or do you lose that right?
>
> If your diamonds are running you have won the previous trick, so as soon
> as the TD leaves, or instructs the table to continue, it is your turn.
> If pard has a penalty card you may be prohibited from leading another
> diamond winner, instead having to lead a [insert suit of partner`s
> penalty card here] if you own one, but it will still be your turn to
> play. If you win a trick, you _have_ to lead to the next one.
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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