[blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns.

[Robert Frick]

Hi Eric. There is an order to the decisions, so your analogy does not  
work. (Change my example to a penalty card if you do not include those  
options for lead out of turn.)

Maybe there is another problem. If you think that the director has to  
inform LHO if there is a nonbarring replacement call...what are you going  
to do if the insufficient bidder refuses to tell you the intention behind  
his bid?

I think that the director has an obligation to tell the insufficient  
bidder whether or not a proposed replacement call is nonbarring. But I  
don't think that the insufficient bidder is required to ask for this  
information. The insufficient bidder might be willing to make a barring  
replacement call. Or the insufficient bidder might be willing to make the  
replacement call and then tell you whatever you need to decide if it bars  
partner or not.

Bob



> On May 29, 2008, at 11:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
>
>> Is this analogy relevant? Suppose there is a club lead out of turn by
>> defender. The declarer would like to insist on the lead of a club. But
>> first, declarer wants to know if the player on lead has a club. Of
>> course.
>> So that declarer would like it very much if I as director peeked
>> into the
>> defender's hand and then explained what would happen if declarer
>> insists
>> on the lead of a club.
>
> Not really, because declarer's ability to demand a club lead is not
> an option consequent on the infraction.  The penalty for the lead out
> of turn, if not accepted, is that the card becomes a penalty card, to
> be disposed of in the proper manner at the proper time.  Until then,
> there are no options available to the OS, nor any further to the NOS
> regarding the PC.  It is mere coincidence that in this case the
> desired disposition of the PC immediately follows its establishment,
> so the ability to bar a club lead looks like a penalty for the club
> LOOT even though it actually isn't.
>
>> Similarly, when there is an insufficient bid, the laws require me
>> to tell
>> LHO his/her options, which are to accept the bid or not accept the
>> bid.
>> LHO might want me to peek at the insufficient bidder's hand and
>> volunteer
>> important information for making that decision, but I don't think I am
>> obligated to do so.
>
> A better analogy might be that when the defender leads out of turn,
> L54D applies; the TD explains that declarer may accept the lead, with
> no further penalty for the OS, or reject it, in which case the card
> becomes a PC.  The offender is surely entitled to be told what the
> potential dispositions of the PC will be.  TD does *not* say, sorry,
> I can't explain that until after you've decided whether to make it
> one.  The actual disposition of the PC at the proper time is an
> entirely separate matter, even if the "proper time" follows immediately.
>>
>
>
>
> Eric Landau
> 1107 Dale Drive
> Silver Spring MD 20910
> ehaa at starpower.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml