Re: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a)
"Sven Pran" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> Robert Frick > Actually, on a OLOOT, if presumed dummy repeats the option of letting dummy > be declarer, I will withdraw that option. It's UI, it suggests letting dummy be > declarer (because the player won't ask if the player doesn't want that option), > and one of the other options has to be an LA. [Sven Pran] Law 16 is not relevant when handling OLOOT (or in fact never when an innocent player has options for the rectification after an irregularity). The applicable law is Law 10, particularly 10C.1 When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all the options available. and 10C.2 If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner. Clearly, if Dummy emphasizes any particular of the options that is available to declarer in such situations then the Director is empowered by Law 10B to waive that option. However, if the Director has failed to comply with Law 10C.1 by forgetting one (or more) of the options available to Declarer and Dummy is aware of this fact I would normally allow Dummy to ask permission to speak in private to the Director in order to avoid a Director's error. The obvious alternative for Dummy is to say nothing until after the play of the board is completed and then call attention to the Director's error. I believe many directors will say that this is the only option available to Dummy in such situations. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml