[blml] Amnesia

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Amnesia


> Roger wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> As I recall you haven't
> said how you will rule,

Given the facts presented, North has made an OLOOT, an infraction.  Dummy 
[N] is spread [L41C] and the lead stands [L47E2]:

[a] play continues, also,

[b] W may choose to POOT [L53C] and it will not be deemed to be to the 
irregular lead; however, being a POOT it is subject to penalty including the 
penalties provided by L57 [declarer may require E to play the [1] highest or 
[2] lowest card of the suit led [L53B] or [3] forbid the play of a suit that 
declarer names].




[c] no, the law does not provide the option for rejecting the irregular 
lead.



>only quibbled about interpretations of words.
> If the law was clear that only presumed declarer's RHO could make an
> OLOOT we wouldn't be having the discussion.

probably so.

regards
roger pewick

>Since it isn't clear words
> will have to be bent somewhere.

> Tim