[blml] Amnesia

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Amnesia


> Roger wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Well, before an opening lead is faced he is "presumed dummy", after an
> opening lead is faced he is "dummy".  By law the transition from one
> state to another happens at exactly the instant that the lead is faced.

>> 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.
>
> No longer an option because of Law54c.

The law does suggest that L54 does not apply since the condition [that 
offender's partner has led face down] hasn't been met:
LAW 54 - FACED OPENING LEAD OUT OF TURN
When an opening lead is faced out of turn, *and offender's partner leads 
face down*, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and 
the following sections apply.

54C.        Declarer Must Accept Lead
If declarer could have seen any of dummy's cards (except cards that dummy 
may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), he 
must accept the lead.


However, the effect of L54C requiring that the lead be accepted does not 
preclude the exercise of L54A with respect to putting his hand down as 
dummy!

>> 47E2.   Retraction of Play
>> (a)     No One Has Subsequently Played
>>
>>         ...... An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has
>> faced any card.
> Agreed - no retraction allowed.
>> After all is said and done.  Whatever option is chosen, dummy's OLOOT
>> may not be retracted.
> But that is irrelevant.

I disagree, it is the point.

> Sure OS don't get a chance to "retract" but,
> presuming someone has drawn attention to the fiasco, we still have to
> apply "the card must be withdrawn" from L45D.

Sven has pointed out that the OLOOT was made by a player [there being no 
dummy].  As such, dummy not having led, the condition of dummy having played 
a card not named by declarer is not satisfied and therefore L45D is mute.

> Note "withdrawn", not
> "retracted".  This is a "must" and carried out at the instruction of the
> TD not an option.

> As I said trickier but soluble.

I was not arguing that it wasn't.  I was arguing about it being solvable 
both as you suggest, and being in accordance with law.

> OK, the laws aren't perfect for the
> situation - whatever I do,

> Roger does, or Sven does requires a bit of
> verbal squeezing.

A red herring and I deny the assertion.  I have addressed without word 
bending every relevant passage;  and without word bending  repudiated 
conflicting assertions wholely from the presented passages.

regards
roger pewick

> I believe my approach is workable and at least as
> good a fit for the law as any other.  It's not the only such approach
> but we don't get the option of saying "The laws don't cover this -
> please go away."
> Tim