Re: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a)
Steve Willner <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2016-07-27 3:39 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > 10C.2 If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make > his selection without consulting partner. Fair enough, but is it really stringent enough? Rectification would presumably come under L12A1, which in effect asks what would have happened without the irrregularity. Don't we want a player with UI to be forced to choose a non-suggested LA, even if he probably would have chosen differently absent UI? > 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. That strikes me as "creative" reading of L10B and also too stringent. What if the suggested option is the only LA? Applying the UI rules seems just right and well within the current wording of L16B1a. The question is whether new Laws should keep it that way. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml