Re: L10c

Mike Dodson:

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.
[snip]

Richard Hills:

1) Only the LHO of an insufficient bidder is empowered to decide whether or
not to accept the insufficient bid (Law 27A1).
2) If the RHO chooses a significant pause as a hint to the LHO, then in my
opinion that is an infraction of Law 16B (Extraneous Information from
Partner).

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

On Friday, February 24, 2017, mike dodson <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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