Re: Dummy's rights

On 2017-09-07 12:02 PM, Peter Eidt wrote:
> L65A3 takes priority over L43A1(b) because it is the specific law for this
> situation.

Thanks for the quick and clear response.  It wasn't obvious to me which 
of the two Laws is the more specific for this case.

> Extract of an early draft of the 2017 Commentary:
> "Law 9A3
> The laws allow any player to try to prevent a player from committing an
...
> Example 2:
> ...
> Law 65B explicitly tells that dummy is allowed to point to this irregularity
> as long as no card is played to the next trick. "

That's on point, but the Law number should be L65B3, and the time limit 
is wrong.  (The initial "65A3" was my mistake, but the "65B" above is an 
incompleteness in the draft Commentary.)

>> For a too-late correction, I don't understand how L16B is relevant.

> Law 16B restrictions are stronger than equity ("had the irregularity not
> occurred").

Indeed!

> When a player has a card wrongly orientated he may be in a wrong assumption
> of the number of tricks needed to fulfil / defeat the contract.

Yes, I follow that far.  The question is whether what is normally AI can 
become UI if a player learns about it in an irregular way.

There used to be a provision that a player (except dummy) was entitled 
to know at any time during play the number of tricks won and lost.  Now 
I can't find it.  Has it been removed?  If so, what makes the number of 
tricks AI at all?  Are players still entitled to ask?
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml