[blml] Law 24

[John Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24


> Matthias wrote:
>
>> this is possibly thr most stupid law in the book, insofar as I am at
>> a loss to comprehend how any declarer could choose not to treat it as
>> a penalty card.
>
> Well, whenever the exposure was due to the infirmity of my LHO perhaps.
> Personally I resent the laws which forbid me (as NOS) to waive penalties
> against the opposition (at least if the TD imposes any greater
> restriction on "for cause" than "because I asked").

It came up that I was telling a story to Espen and he made a OBOOT, which I 
didn't feel I should profit from as it was my distraction that may have 
caused it. The TD I summoned (not incompetent) was not inclined to waive the 
penalty and told us he had an urgent subsequent appointment and we could 
play a game not entirely unlike Contract Bridge under the 1997 laws if we 
chose in his absence. Given he didn't want to allow the penalty to be 
waived, I think he did very well.

I then had a word with Max about "for cause". Max felt that "because I want 
to" is insufficient, but that "I was distracting him" would be. I'm sure 
also he'd permit "because he's infirm" - his take was that you don't need 
*much* of a reason.  cheers John

>
> Tim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml