L10c

Herman De Wael:

[snip]
However, Richard carefully avoids saying anything about the other part:
the lead out of turn by dummy or declarer. Here, both opponents may
accept or refuse, so waiting to hear from partner must be allowed. But
when partner speaks, he has decided for the partnership.
[snip]

Richard Hills:

Not so. Herman has slightly misinterpreted the (admittedly ambiguous) 2007
Law 55. The forthcoming unambiguous 2017 Law 55 will reveal that it is not
necessarily the defender first to speak who decides for the partnership,
but rather:

"If the defenders choose differently then the option expressed by the
player next in turn to the irregular lead shall prevail".

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

On Friday, February 24, 2017, Herman De Wael <[email protected]> wrote:

> Richard is correct as to the insufficient bid. Since only you can
> accept, any agreement by which partner can influence you is illegal
> communication.
> However, Richard carefully avoids saying anything about the other part:
> the lead out of turn by dummy or declarer. Here, both opponents may
> accept or refuse, so waiting to hear from partner must be allowed. But
> when partner speaks, he has decided for the partnership.
> And if this is illegal communication, then there is nothing anyone can
> do about it.
> Herman.
>
> Richard Hills wrote:
> > 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]
> > <mailto:[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
> >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
> > Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/14006 - Release Date:
> 02/23/17
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml