axman Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 May I draw attention to my post #8 (and also #12)? I still think that the simplest way to avoid this nonsense (other than just ignoring it) is to rephrase the preamble in Law 54 to read:When an opening lead out of turn is faced* then:.....*if offender’s partner leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted. Rephrasing the law has merits. Rephrasing that way manifests a different nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 Five possibilities: 1. Putative declarer's LHO leads face down, while putative declarer's RHO also leads face down.2 Putative declarer's LHO leads face up, while putative declarer's RHO also leads face up.3. Putative declarer's LHO leads face down, while putative declarer's RHO leads face up.4. Putative declarer's LHO leads face up, while putative declarer's RHO leads face down.5. Putative declarer's LHO makes no lead, while putative declarer's RHO leads face up. Which law applies, or which laws apply, to each of these situations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 Five possibilities: 1. Putative declarer's LHO leads face down, while putative declarer's RHO also leads face down.2 Putative declarer's LHO leads face up, while putative declarer's RHO also leads face up.3. Putative declarer's LHO leads face down, while putative declarer's RHO leads face up.4. Putative declarer's LHO leads face up, while putative declarer's RHO leads face down.5. Putative declarer's LHO makes no lead, while putative declarer's RHO leads face up. Which law applies, or which laws apply, to each of these situations?1: 16B and 41A - The attempted lead by RHO is simply restored to his hand without being faced2: 58A and 41C3: 544: 16B and 41C - The attempted lead by RHO is simply restored to his hand without being faced5: 54 - That is what this thread is all about, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 I infer that you think that in cases 1 and 4 LHO has UI. What is the nature of this I? What does it imply? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 I infer that you think that in cases 1 and 4 LHO has UI. What is the nature of this I? What does it imply?The fact that RHO attempted OLOOT is UI to LHO. What could be inferred from this UI is not obvious. (Maybe for instance the auction as such could give some clue?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 The fact that RHO attempted OLOOT is UI to LHO. What could be inferred from this UI is not obvious.You might suspect that they have a honding they're really eager to lead from, such as a singleton against a suit contract, or a nice honor sequence. I think this is often the case when I attempt to OLOOT. Luckily I'm religious about making the OL face down, so we almost always catch it before it's faced. I can't recall ever hearing of a TD being called to rule on the UI from a potential OLOOT that was not actually faced. Your turn, Lamford. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.