[blml] Law 24

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Ton Kooijman
> . I find it presumptuous for the TD to
> > decide on applying Law 16A on his own recognizance when the declarer has
> > specifically decided not to, and find no justification for a Sponsoring
> > Organizations right to decide otherwise.
> >
> > Kojak.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we know your firm points of view.
> Then you should be able to answer my question what to do with such shown
> card not to be treated as a PC on the explicit wish of the declarer?
> Assume for example that declarer asks you that? What sir is the
> consequence
> of not treating it as a PC?
> 
> ton

Shouldn't that be rather obvious?

1: The card is not a PC so it is taken back to the offender's hand

2: Offender's partner can have seen the card under circumstances which makes
that observation "extraneous information" to him as defined in Law 16A. So
Law 16A applies to its full extent on offender's partner. 

Regards Sven 
(Sorry for bouncing in, but I wish this discussion on Law 24 could be
terminated, I find it rather fruitless and tiresome)