[blml] L20F1

[Roger Eymard]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Grattan Endicott" <grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1


>
> from Grattan Endicott
> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
> [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
> *****************************
> "Reason's whole pleasure, all the
>                               joys of sense,
> Lie in three words, health, peace,
>                          and competence."
>                       -~ Alexander Pope.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Roger Eymard" <roger-eymard at wanadoo.fr>
> To: "David Barton" <david.j.barton at lineone.net>;
> <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1
>
>
>> Roger Eymard :
>>
>> Questions and answers seem to have happened
>> after the final pass. So L20F2 applies, and does
>> not contain any requirement as to who explains
>> what are NS agreements.
> <
> +=+ An interesting thought. There is an intention
> that replies should be given as in 20F1 but the
> drafting is sloppy. 20F2 is silent on the question
> of who should reply; but that creates no authority
> for extending the provision so that either partner may
> reply. When the law was drafted it was meant to be
> understood that the only statement made on the
> point should still govern who should respond. Your
> interpretation demonstrates that the drafters should
> have been more explicit to avoid confusion.
>                                ~ Grattan ~   +=+

Roger Eymard :

When an answer to a question asked after the final pass does not show the 
agreement of the pair, the other player (dummy or declarer) must correct the 
explanation. So, at that precise moment, both players are entitled to 
explain, and I don't see why the provision of L20F1 should apply to L20F2 in 
the next draft of TFLB. There is no danger of UI between declarer and dummy, 
and any way of avoiding any consequence of MI on defenders' play seems 
appropriate.
IMO, it could be inserted in L20F2 that both declarer and dummy are entitled 
to answer a question by a defender, not only at the moment of the lead, but, 
may be, even for a question asked during the play. That would not increase 
the risk of UI, and that would decrease the risk of MI. L75D should be 
redrafted accordingly.

Regards