Re: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a)

Steve Willner
> 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.

[Sven Pran] 
I see no reason why not?

Law 10C.2 is a "must" law - the strongest there is, and the consequence of
violating such a law is for the Director to rule at his discretion.

If he acknowledges that the "suggested" option is the only (reasonable) LA
then why should he waive that option?
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml