[blml] Law 24

John Probst john at asimere.com
Thu Jun 8 01:18:01 CEST 2006 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" <schoderb at msn.com>
To: "Probst John (MadDog)" <john at asimere.com>; "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24


> Let me make sure I understand this.  The TD, should apply A,B,C of Law 24
> during the auction.
> 24A. The law states that there is no further penalty.
>
> 24B and 24C the Law gives a penalty during the auction.
>
> When the declarer becomes known by completing the auction the TD should
> inform the defenders that by the declarer's choice Law 50 does not apply
> since one of them has exposed himself.
> However, Law 16 applies and the exposer's partner ".....may not choose 
> from
> logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over
> another by the extraneous information....." during
> play.
>
> He has two logical options when on lead.  He could lead a trump, or his
> partner's twice bid suit of spades. Having seen partner's Ace it is clear
> that he has unauthorized information, fitting the "demonstrably have been
> suggested" so he carefully avoids even the hint of a problem, leads a 
> trump
> and sets the contract. Had he not felt so constrained and led his 
> partner's
> suit declarer would have made his contract.
>
> I guess that is another slant on rub-of-the-green.

I think I go with rub-of-the-green here, Kojak. We're not in realms of 
"could have known". Declarer was aware (or should have been made aware) of 
the consequences of his decision not to enforce the penalty card. That this 
lead to his own downfall is his problem, not that of the defence.I 
definitely stick to my assertion that the UI aspect is independent of the 
penalty card aspect. You and I have discussed f2f  the law in terms of "How 
do *we* play bridge" a number of times, and I don't see how we can wriggle 
out of the UI.

Are you suggesting we can?
>
> Right?
>
> Can we at least agree that since there is no penalty card Law 50 C is out 
> of
> the picture?

clearly so.
>
> However, since we hit the defense twice, once for exposing a card(s)
> (Law24), and second for effectively barring the lead of partner's suit
> (Law16), we can blithely go on knowing that we have done a good TD job.

Noo Kojak, Noo. We have ensured that the offending side is aware of its 
ethical obligations. I'm very concerned if we're allowing a player to 
"profit" from UI however gained, even if his ultimate action actually is to 
his benefit when he attempts to meet his obligations. We're happy that the 
law permits rub of the green. The shmock is allowed to get lucky sometimes 
surely, but we can't allow him to cheat? Otherwise we're back to "If it 
hesitates, shoot it" type thinking and we know that that is wrong.   We can 
interpret L16 many ways.  How do *you* play bridge? (apart from badly, of 
course).[[ The world must be told Kojak is a regional winner. He beat my 
team in the final of the Wiesbaden ko midnight zips! ]]

>
> And, while we are at it, isn't it interesting that Law 16B specifically 
> uses
> the words "...by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own 
> table
> BEFORE (caps for emphasis are mine) the auction begins...." leaving an
> exposed card during the auction for a specific law later on? I wonder why?
> Or do we now want to go back and put it in Law 16A where it is the guy in
> shorts at a formal dinner?

We know we have problems with 16. We think we know what it means even if it 
says it very badly?
Mmm. very interesting problem though, I agree.

cheers John

>
> Kojak
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Probst" <john at asimere.com>
> To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24
>
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Ton Kooijman" <t.kooyman at worldonline.nl>
>> To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" <schoderb at msn.com>; "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>;
>> <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:45 AM
>> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> 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.
>>
>> I think I'm going to weigh in against Kojak here. The specific act of not
>> making the card a penalty card means that the declarer does not wish to
>> invoke the lead penalties and play penalties specifically associated with
>> there being a major PC. It does not in any way address the "extraneous"
>> information which has been transmitted.
>>
>> However the way we play bridge is by means of the calls and plays alone,
>> so the information content of the exposed card is not something that the
>> offender's partner is allowed to use.  We're not worried about how he got
>> to find out about this card. There are two different processes which are
>> entirely independent.
>>
>> 1) We don't want to exact play penalties for a MPC
>> 2) We must address the general problem of some UI.
>>
>> I don't think we can play bridge any other way. and I specifically 
>> haven't
>> used law numbers here because the problem needs to be addressed as "How 
>> do
>> we play bridge?"  cheers John
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

More information about the blml mailing list