Re: OLOOT, asked first

Am 15.06.2016 um 12:39 schrieb Robert Frick:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:00:10 -0400, Matthias Berghaus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Am 13.06.2016 um 16:58 schrieb Robert Frick:
>>>
>>> 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.

Say, can`t you read or something? L25 says

25D4:

If a substitution is allowed the LHO may withdraw any call he made over 
the first call. Information from the withdrawn call is authorized only 
to his side. There is no further rectification.


 From where do you get the notion that I (or any TD who read the laws) 
would let offender`s LHO make a call over the "new" call, then 
substitute it ? A call by non-offender can obviously only be retracted 
and substituted by another if there has been a call over the first call. 
I did not say I would do otherwise, anywhere. Not in this thread, not in 
any other.

What I find absolutely incredible is that someone has the gall to try 
and turn my words in my mouth, or my keyboard, as it were.

>
> 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.

According to me, the play should be in an even tempo, like any other 
play. The laws do not use "must" here (the strongest "demand"), and 
neither do I. Since Bridge is played by humans, not machines, some plays 
are out of tempo. That happens, and it is a breach of the laws only if 
it is on purpose. If you had read 73D1 you would have found


            It is desirable, though not always required, for players to
            maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner.However, players
            should be particularly careful when variations may work to
            the benefit of their side.Otherwise, unintentionally to vary
            the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not
            in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may
            appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.


Clear enough, hm? And don`t shout at me, thank you.

>
> 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.

So I am at the table. Why is that so? If someone tells me that player X 
did not follow suit, then that play has to be corrected, and other cards 
by the non-offenders (and, under certain conditions, of the offending 
side) could possibly be retracted and substituted by another if the 
non-offender(s) so choose(s). This is L62, plain and simple. If no one 
tells me about that non-established revoke (instead having called for 
some other reason) why in the world would I not let the player on lead 
continue? Am I a clairvoyant or something? If I know about the revoke 
(from the players at the table) there are things to be done, and in that 
case L9 would certainly _not_ be on my side, since L62 has to be 
followed. So, no, I could not follow the rules to let them establish the 
revoke if a player at the table has drawn attention to the fact that 
there has been a revoke, since following L62 comes first.
There even has been a case a couple of years ago where a player summoned 
the TD (because he had noticed - in time - that he revoked), and his 
partner led to the next trick before the TD could arrive. 
Non-established revoke, since the TD call was deemed to stop any 
"action" at the table.
Still, if the TD should become aware - say from observing the play, or 
whatever - that a player did not follow suit, he has to wait until 64B4 
or 5 kicks in, or until a player from the table summons him, before 
acting. This means letting the revoke become established if need be, 
yes, because the non-offenders have certain rights (like noticing and 
having tricks transferred if the law says so) and the TD has to be 
careful not to act to the advantage of one side or the other. If 64B4/5 
kicks in, the TD may award an adjusted score per 64C if the offenders 
profited from the infraction.


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