[blml] Law 24

[Ton Kooijman]

> For Ton and Grattan,
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.

We are trying for quite some days now.
Declarer did not decide to wave any additional penalty. Given the option he
decided not to treat this card as a PC.

ton


>The declarer has exercised an option
> permitted by Law WHEN HE BECAME THE DECLARER. Other penalties have already
> been applied per Law 24.  He has decided that he does not wish any
> additional penalties (Law 50 and Law 16) to apply.  The Law has stated he
> has that option.  You now wish to tell me that the TD can go to Law 16,
> decide that the "player has chosen among logical alternatives one that
could
> have been suggested over another by the extraneous information" and now
> adjust the score?
>
> And please, rather than talking around the question, please answer it.  A
> simple yes or no would be greatly appreciated. The Law told the players
what
> to do during the auction, the law told the players what could happen
during
> the play, and the Law permitted the declarer to not wish to penalize the
> play of the cards.  Is there anything much cleared than that? Or is your
> reluctance to accept the Law based on some sort of idea that the players
are
> dunces and the TD must play the hands for them?
>
> Again a yes or no would suffice to let me know what we are talking about..
>
> Kojak
>  ----- Original Message -----
> From: <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>
> To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 6:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24
>
>
> >
> > Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
> > [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
> > *********************************
> > Haditha.    [;-( ]
> > ========================
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ton Kooijman" <t.kooyman at worldonline.nl>
> > To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:18 AM
> > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24
> >
> >
> > >
> > > What I really don't understand is how you can
> > > ignore L16C when you allow the card to be
> > > picked up. Seems utterly wrong to me.
> > >
> > > ton
> > >
> > +=+ If the exposed card is picked up Law 16C
> > surely applies when the card was played or led;
> > when the exposure was accidental* and not a
> > purposeful lead or play, the information gained
> > from it was made available by partner and thus
> > subject to 16A. This is my opinion.
> >                ~ Grattan ~   +=+
> > (*or indeed purposeful but not a lead or play,
> > if such can be the case)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > blml mailing list
> > blml at amsterdamned.org
> > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml