[blml] Amnesia

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Amnesia


> Roger asked.
>
>> What do you suggest in the case given the premise that the declaring
>> side makes an OLOOT:
>>
>> W  N  E  S
>>
>> P-  P- P- 1N
>>
>> PPP
>>
>> N pulls a card from his hand, says*, 'my lead?' and [immediately]
>> faces his card?  Let us say that W calls the TD.
>
> How about applying the laws?
>
> L41D:  After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front
> of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of
> rank, in columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer, with trumps to
> dummy's right. Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy.

hmmm.  ok.  Dummy tables his other 12 cards.  That's whaat is says.

> Followed by:
>
> L45D:  If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did
> not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before
> each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw
> (without penalty) a card played after the error but before attention was
> drawn to it; if declarer's RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a
> card he had subsequently played to that trick (see Law 16C2).

hmmm.  This may indeed get interesting.  I'm not sure about distinctions 
here.  Is presumed dummy the same as dummy, or does it make a difference 
subsequent the OL?  If there is no dummy until it is faced, I do not think 
it is valid to say that dummy has done anything until after dummy is faced. 
I think something like that has been argued but I wouldn't put money on it, 
yet.

> Ok, there's a tiny discrepancy in tense but not enough to render the law
> unworkable.  The opening lead reverts to declarer's LHO - who now has
> the advantage of having seen dummy - well, tough titty to offenders,
> next time maybe N will be less careless.

At this point I am going to point out a few things.

Given that 'dummy' has made an OLOOT then

41C.    Opening Lead Faced
Following this question period, the opening lead is faced, the play period 
begins, and dummy's hand is spread.



dummy's other 12 cards are spread, and....



55A.    Declarer's Lead Accepted
If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either defender 
may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after 
misinformation, see Law 47E1).



L55A gives defenders the option to accept Declarer's named card from dummy. 
I am thinking that it does not apply when dummy acts on his on volition.  It 
being arguable whether it was dummy or presumed dummy that acted.

but....

53A.    Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead
Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead.



This is unequivocal, imo.



Yet....





54A. Declarer Spreads His Hand
After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he 
becomes dummy, and dummy becomes declarer.



Truly interesting, I dare say.



Dummy's hand has been spread, and now declarer may elect to spread his hand 
also and watch partner declare!



However!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



47E2.   Retraction of Play
(a)     No One Has Subsequently Played

        ...... An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced 
any card.



After all is said and done.  Whatever option is chosen, dummy's OLOOT may 
not be retracted.


As a further however!!!!! I do note that previously TWM suggested that L55A 
comes into play.......

"Yes, not a problem.  Defenders have a right, enshrined in L55a to accept
a LOOT by declarer (Opening lead or otherwise).

An OLOOT by presumed dummy is trickier, but can also be dealt with.

Tim"


.......And that he did not mention it above!!!

After all, Tim suggested that the lawS be followed.

regards
roger pewick


> I wouldn't mind if the next laws made clear that an OLOOT could not be
> made by declaring side - and I'm sure wording it wouldn't be too
> difficult.  Until then I happy that doing things this way ensures
> maximum protection to NOS from such shenanigans.
>
> If some other TD feels it better to rule "no opening lead has been made"
> I'd not overrule him were I CTD, I believe there's just about enough
> ambiguity to allow that interpretation.
>
> Tim