[blml] Law 24

[WILLIAM SCHODER]

The card is returned to the hand, and play continues without further 
penalty, since the declarer has decided that he does not wish to penalize.

For instance, RHO has bid spades twice, and also drops the Ace of Spades on 
the table reaching for a drink before LHO can make the opening lead. 
Declarer fully expected a spade lead, he is prepared for it, plans on it, 
and sees no reason to now impose a penalty under Law 24 and/or Law 50. He 
expected that RHO, having twice named the suit has cards in it that he'd 
like to win.  Yes, LHO has unauthorized information, but he also has good 
reason to believe that his partner has spades. Please, sir, take into 
account that Law 16 treats with information that is not already forthcoming 
from legal actions. This is a simple example, and there are many other more 
complicated ones. I would not enforce a draconian action that says that LHO 
"may  not choose from logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have 
been suggested over another by the extraneous information" when declarer 
does not wish to prohibit a spade lead from LHO now or at any time in the 
play. To do so would be the TD playing bridge instead of the players, and 
would most probably produce an aberrant score for no good reason.

It is interesting to know that in your country someone apparently decides 
what the law is, even when the Law does not presently provide for Regulating 
Authority to change it. Not a stellar example for those on BLML who are 
trained to follow the laws as presently written, I would venture.

P.S. You can always expect a "firm points of view" from me -- that is part 
of the job.  What would you want to do, prohibit a spade lead since clearly 
it is a logical alternative and certainly "could demonstrably have been 
suggested" by the view of the Spade Ace?

Kojak




----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Ton Kooijman" <t.kooyman at worldonline.nl>
To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" <schoderb at msn.com>; <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>; "blml" 
<blml at rtflb.org>; "Grattan Endicott" <grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24


> . 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
>
>
>