[jdonn]

blackshoe, on May 7 2010, 02:10 PM, said:

If there is adequate evidence of such a deliberate violation, I will deal with it — but that would be very rare, IME.

Of course there won't be evidence if you don't try to find out?

Anyway just to (re)clarify, I didn't say ask "routinely", I said judge whether or not to ask on a case by case basis. I suspect I would not ask a fair amount more often than I would ask. But if I were to ask then the player should not take offense, it's an investigation not an accusation.

[Echognome]

pran, on May 5 2010, 01:48 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 5 2010, 09:17 AM, said:

Why is everyone making this straw-man argument? There is nothing wrong with following the law, I have said it's the law itself I don't like. Disagree on that opinion if you like but rhetorical questions about what is wrong with EW following the law are pointless.

I would like to hear; if Law 53 should not apply to lead out of turn to trick 13, why not also to trick 12 (or even to trick 11, or to earlier tricks)?

It's not without precedence. See the laws on revokes...

[nige1]

axman, on May 4 2010, 03:49 PM, said:

The D7 is a LOOT accepted by W.  The D7 stands and play to the trick progresses as if the D7 was a proper lead.  L53A.
Declarer's holding is irrelevant.  L47F2.

Rossoneri, on May 5 2010, 09:58 AM, said:

An interesting thought occured to me. Consider the following hypothetical situation at trick 13: What if declarer thought that the card in his hand was a loser (when it actually is a winner) and the the card in dummy a winner (when it actually isn't), and try to lead out of turn from dummy?

aguahombre, on May 5 2010, 06:52 PM, said:

There is one card left.  There are no mistakes left to be made.

gordontd, on May 5 2010, 02:33 PM, said:

Yes there are - the mistake that was in fact made in the original post.

This ploy has a fair chance of success aganst opponents who are not in contention. If there were no law against it, there would be a greater incentive to try it. Worse -- were there no law against it, it would be quite ethical to try it.

[bluejak]

Someone tell me why I read this thread?

Post one: question asked.

Post two: question answered.

Posts three to forty-two: ?????

[nige1]

To add post 43?

[jdonn]

Just another case of the immense confusion that some people experience when trying to read about more than one related topic in but a single thread. Although the same people rarely mind posting an off-topic reply themselves.

[JoAnneM]

I think of threads as conversations, which I assume you carry on with people or groups of people. Conversations wander or progress. I don't think it is unusual at all. If you only talk to people in one word questions and answers then I guess you are right.

[Phil]

Echognome, on May 7 2010, 05:29 PM, said:

pran, on May 5 2010, 01:48 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 5 2010, 09:17 AM, said:

Why is everyone making this straw-man argument? There is nothing wrong with following the law, I have said it's the law itself I don't like. Disagree on that opinion if you like but rhetorical questions about what is wrong with EW following the law are pointless.

I would like to hear; if Law 53 should not apply to lead out of turn to trick 13, why not also to trick 12 (or even to trick 11, or to earlier tricks)?

It's not without precedence. See the laws on revokes...

TYP.

Worst beer attempt EVER!

By the way, I don't have a problem with the current law nor the ruling.

Bridge does require the ability to focus for 13 tricks. Or at least, being able to claim correctly. Who knows? I'll bet the declarer had lost their way and thought the beer was good.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on May 7 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

Of course there won't be evidence if you don't try to find out?

Something may come up which leads me to investigate the question, but I'm not going on any witch hunts.

Quote

Anyway just to (re)clarify, I didn't say ask "routinely", I said judge whether or not to ask on a case by case basis. I suspect I would not ask a fair amount more often than I would ask. But if I were to ask then the player should not take offense, it's an investigation not an accusation.

All true.

[Pig Trader]

Quote

If you don't like the law, lobby for a change - but do it, if you're going to do it on IBLF, in the proper forum.

Okey doke. Done!

Barrie