headers
Steve Willner | 1 Apr 2012 01:13
Favicon

Re: No diamonds in dummy

On 2012-03-29 11:30 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
> At notrump, declarer leads a diamond in which dummy is void.  LHO
> discards, declarer says "small," dummy does nothing, and RHO wins the
> trick.  RHO now leads a spade to the next trick.  Dummy has a spade
> winner, but declarer might have discarded it on the diamond trick.
>
> I get as far as:
> L46B1c: "small" means dummy's lowest diamond
> L46B4: no diamonds in dummy, call is void, declarer designates any legal
> card

Another complication: L46B1c says: "If [declarer] calls ‘low’, or words 
of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the lowest card."

Does that mean the lowest card of the suit led (nonexistent), or the 
lowest card of any suit in dummy?  In other words, if dummy has exactly 
one deuce, is declarer obliged to play that card?  My opinion would be 
"no," but the words don't actually say.

Suggestion for 2017: add "of the suit led" to all parts of L46B1.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Steve Willner | 1 Apr 2012 01:21
Favicon

Pilfered

A case discussed on r.g.b raises some interesting questions.  Suppose a 
defender accidentally puts a card he is playing on top of or near one of 
dummy's cards.  When the trick is completed, the defender grabs both 
cards and puts them in his own stack of quitted tricks.  There is no 
doubt this is an infraction (L7B3), and if the declaring side is 
damaged, there will be an adjusted score afterwards (L12A1).  But:

1. Suppose dummy notices immediately.  Is he allowed to say anything, or 
does L43A1 (any part) prevent him from doing so?  L42A3 or 7B3 may be 
relevant.

2. Suppose dummy notices later, but before play is over, notices one of 
his cards has vanished.  Anything allowing him to speak up then?

3. L14B1 says "among the played cards," but I can't believe that's meant 
to apply here.  Probably it should say "among the player's own played 
cards."  Comments?

For 2017 Laws: take a look at 3 above.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Robert Frick | 1 Apr 2012 03:44
Favicon

Re: Pilfered

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:21:32 -0400, Steve Willner <swillner <at> nhcc.net>  
wrote:

> A case discussed on r.g.b raises some interesting questions.  Suppose a
> defender accidentally puts a card he is playing on top of or near one of
> dummy's cards.  When the trick is completed, the defender grabs both
> cards and puts them in his own stack of quitted tricks.  There is no
> doubt this is an infraction (L7B3), and if the declaring side is
> damaged, there will be an adjusted score afterwards (L12A1).  But:
>
> 1. Suppose dummy notices immediately.  Is he allowed to say anything, or
> does L43A1 (any part) prevent him from doing so?  L42A3 or 7B3 may be
> relevant.
>
> 2. Suppose dummy notices later, but before play is over, notices one of
> his cards has vanished.  Anything allowing him to speak up then?
>
> 3. L14B1 says "among the played cards," but I can't believe that's meant
> to apply here.  Probably it should say "among the player's own played
> cards."  Comments?
>
> For 2017 Laws: take a look at 3 above.

It's probably relevant how you are going to rule if dummy doesn't say  
anything. Maybe the dummy doesn't even notice. To me, the defender is the  
offending side. So if declarer is damaged, I will rectify; if the defense  
is damaged, I won't.

Given that, the defense doesn't have much to complain about if dummy  
speaks.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Robert Frick | 6 Apr 2012 18:20
Favicon

OLOOT is back in hand

There is an opening lead out of turn. The offender quickly picks up the  
card at puts it in his hand. The director is called, you come to the  
table, and....

It's not a common situation, but it happens more often than other things  
mentioned in the laws. Should the laws cover this situation? I had it  
yesterday, and it would have been nice I guess to have some guidance.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 40 comments |
headers
Sven Pran | 6 Apr 2012 20:06
Picon
Picon

Re: OLOOT is back in hand

> Robert Frick
> Sendt: 6. april 2012 18:20
> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Emne: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand
> 
> There is an opening lead out of turn. The offender quickly picks up the
card at
> puts it in his hand. The director is called, you come to the table,
and....
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a common situation, but it happens more often than other things
> mentioned in the laws. Should the laws cover this situation? I had it
> yesterday, and it would have been nice I guess to have some guidance.

[Sven Pran] 
If any of the other three players at the table can name the exposed card
then TD can (and should) rule the card exposed during the auction period in
an act of leading it, and from thereon you have all you need in Laws 24B and
54.

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 37 comments |
headers
David | 6 Apr 2012 22:36

Re: OLOOT is back in hand


-----Original Message----- 
From: Sven Pran
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 7:06 PM
To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand

> Robert Frick
> Sendt: 6. april 2012 18:20
> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Emne: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand
>
> There is an opening lead out of turn. The offender quickly picks up the
card at
> puts it in his hand. The director is called, you come to the table,
and....
>
>
>
> It's not a common situation, but it happens more often than other things
> mentioned in the laws. Should the laws cover this situation? I had it
> yesterday, and it would have been nice I guess to have some guidance.

[Sven Pran]
If any of the other three players at the table can name the exposed card
then TD can (and should) rule the card exposed during the auction period in
an act of leading it, and from thereon you have all you need in Laws 24B and
54.

{David Barton}
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Sven Pran | 6 Apr 2012 23:09
Picon
Picon

Re: OLOOT is back in hand

> {David Barton}
> 
> The OP did not state whether the lead was face up or down.
> L41A states that a face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction
of
> the Director after an irregularity.
> 
> A face up lead obviously MAY have been seen by partner.
> 
> So in either case the original card must be played.
> (assuming nothing odd like a misexplanation) Any player being able to name
> the card is nor relevant.

[Sven Pran] 

I say it so strong as if an OLOOT has been made face down and not
subsequently faced then the Director must instruct it to be taken back with
no other consequence than that his apparent intention of leading to the
first trick is UI to his partner. 

I understood OP that the OLOOT had been made face up.

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Robert Frick | 7 Apr 2012 01:25
Favicon

Re: OLOOT is back in hand

On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:06:39 -0400, Sven Pran <svenpran <at> online.no> wrote:

>> Robert Frick
>> Sendt: 6. april 2012 18:20
>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
>> Emne: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand
>>
>> There is an opening lead out of turn. The offender quickly picks up the
> card at
>> puts it in his hand. The director is called, you come to the table,
> and....
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not a common situation, but it happens more often than other things
>> mentioned in the laws. Should the laws cover this situation? I had it
>> yesterday, and it would have been nice I guess to have some guidance.
>
> [Sven Pran]
> If any of the other three players at the table can name the exposed card
> then TD can (and should) rule the card exposed during the auction period  
> in
> an act of leading it, and from thereon you have all you need in Laws 24B  
> and
> 54.

Right, it was a face up opening lead and at least one of the players could  
name the card which is now in the players hand.

The whole point was that I do not have all I need in L54. Why do you say I
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 34 comments |
headers
Sven Pran | 7 Apr 2012 01:42
Picon
Picon

Re: OLOOT is back in hand

> Robert Frick 
> Right, it was a face up opening lead and at least one of the players could
> name the card which is now in the players hand.
> 
> The whole point was that I do not have all I need in L54. Why do you say I
do?
> Or are you saying I now just mindlessly follow L54? I can't believe any
director
> would do that. Try rereading L54 with the notion that perhaps neither
> declarer or opening leader knows what the card was.

[Sven Pran] 
I simply do not understand your problem?

According to Law 24 the card was exposed, and the way it was exposed was in
an act of leading the card, so Law 24B applies.

At the end of the clarification period (which here apparently is
immediately) the card becomes an OLOOT if it belongs to presumed declarer's
RHO, and you apply Law 54.

If instead the card belongs to presumed declarer's LHO it is just led (no
OLOOT in that case)

And finally: If the card belongs to presumed declarer or dummy we go from
Law 54E back to Law 24 and find that the card is simply restored to that
player's hand.

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jeff Easterson | 7 Apr 2012 01:49
Picon
Favicon

Re: OLOOT is back in hand

I don't see Robert's problem.  An opening lead was made out of turn, 
face up.  Why does he have a problem with §54?  It seems to me to cover 
all possibilities and as far as I know it is standard procedure to apply 
§54.  I know of no experienced TD who has a problem with this.  And it 
is irrelevant if anyone has seen it although obviously the other players 
have, or could have, assuming they were not at the bar or blind.  As we 
all know, excepting apparently Robert, there are the following 
possibilities: Declarer spreads his hand (§54A) and his partner is 
declarer or (§54B) he accepts the lead.  §54C seems irrelevant judging 
from Robert's description.  Or (§54D) Declarer requires that the lead 
out of turn be retracted and it is a major penalty card.  (§50D is 
applied.)  §54E seems irrelevant according to Robert's description.

So what's the problem?  Does Robert have a different rule book?

Ciao,  JE

Am 07.04.2012 01:25, schrieb Robert Frick:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:06:39 -0400, Sven Pran<svenpran <at> online.no>  wrote:
>
>>> Robert Frick
>>> Sendt: 6. april 2012 18:20
>>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
>>> Emne: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand
>>>
>>> There is an opening lead out of turn. The offender quickly picks up the
>> card at
>>> puts it in his hand. The director is called, you come to the table,
>> and....
>>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane