L10c
"mike dodson" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <F8E20A3A33944FC49B145FEE5B73B7D3@mike> |
A discussion in bridge-laws-2017 of agreements after insufficient bids made me wonder if I have been cheating. After an opponent’s insufficient bid or lead out of turn, I pause but do not call attention to the irregularity unless I have a clear preference. I assume partner is paying attention and will call attention if he feels it is to our advantage. If it’s a lead out of turn and an opponent calls attention (all too often dummy!) I carefully say nothing unless I have a clear preference. Allowing partner to speak first could be construed to be consultation, even if it seems allowed after a LOoT. If waiting for partner to take action is consulting, calling attention to an irregularity is optional by L9 (may) and mandatory by L10 (without consulting partner). Further as a director, should I rule against a player who didn’t notice a lead or bid from an unexpected source. And what ruling? Bid or play accepted by the pause? PP on general principles or disqualification for deliberate violation of Law 10 (if I am mind reading I’ll know). Mike Dodson _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml