[blml] Law 24

[Eric Landau]

At 08:01 PM 6/6/06, WILLIAM wrote:

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

L24 allows declarer to decline to "treat every such card as a penalty 
card".  But I don't see how we can leap from there to "he does not wish 
*any* [emphasis mine] additional penalties to apply" or "[does] not 
wish to penalize the play of the cards".  His decision means that the 
card is not "disposed of" as a penalty card, so L50 doesn't apply.  It 
does not immunize the opponents from being penalized under, say, L64 
during the play of the cards; why should it immunize them from being 
penalized under L16?


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607