[blml] Law 24

[WILLIAM SCHODER]

For Sven:

My point was not that he so much desired a spade lead at that time, but that
he didn't care about a spade lead.  For instance change the exposed card to
the person to make the opening lead -- a penalty imposed under Law 50 now
would take place on the first trick. Perhaps the late hour I wrote last 
night did not get my thoughts clearly across, but what I am saying is that 
is that there are times when both defenders know about the location of a 
card of any rank exposed during the auction and the
declarer
feels it is immaterial.  Remember, please, that according to this law it is
only after the player has become the declarer, the auction is over, and any
penalty such as 24 demands has already been exacted. The option of an
additional penalty later on, during play, is the one that the declarer has
the right to negate. I find no place where the law says that the penalty of
causing partner to pass for one round is an option of the declarer. That has
already happened if it was an honor card. The three possibilities of A, B,
and C, of Law 24 have already taken place. Please carefully read the word
"subsequently" -- without it the Law would make no sense since we don't yet 
know who the declarer is going to be when the card is exposed.

For Ton:

I'm not ignoring anything or any Law.  I'm simply stating that declarer, by
Law 24, has the right to waive the play penalty of this infraction, not the
auction ones.  What is of interest to me is that Law 10 should perhaps
contain a parenthetical statement in A such as ("but see Law 24" -- or some
such) for this very minor decision by declarer. If your country is of the
opinion that the declarer has an option vis-à-vis A, B, and C of Law 24 as
it is written in English, then translation has been faulty.

Kojak


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 2:55 AM
Subject: RE: [blml] Law 24


> On Behalf Of 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.

Have you overlooked, sir that by treating the exposed card as a penalty card
declarer can ensure the spade lead he so much desire while if he waives his
rights under Law 24 he can no longer be sure of a spade lead?

I am not in favour of having L24 altered in any way. That law gives IMO
absolutely no problem and I feel that you ought to come up with some better
reasoning for your view?

Regards Sven





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