[Vampyr]

This weekend my partner dealt and passed with a card still in the board. I made a comment, and he took the card out. I knew that L14C states that "Knowledge of the replacement of a card is unauthorized for the partner of a player whose hand contained an incorrect number of cards", but I was wondering if the fact that his card was in the board was authorised for me, or if I was obliged to let him continue with 12 cards until such time as the opponents commented on it or he noticed it himself. I felt that something that is patently obvious and visible to all should be authorised, but the Laws were mute on the subject. Similarly, if somehow all the pockets are empty but partner has cards from a different board, am I permitted to notice that the backs of his cards are the wrong colour?

[blackshoe]

The word "unauthorized" in the phrase "unauthorized information" does not imply that a player in receipt of same is not authorized to call attention to his partner's irregularity. It means he's not authorized to use it in determining his calls or plays.

[GreenMan]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-28, 22:38, said:

The word "unauthorized" in the phrase "unauthorized information" does not imply that a player in receipt of same is not authorized to call attention to his partner's irregularity. It means he's not authorized to use it in determining his calls or plays.

Ergo, the fact that partner might actually have an opening hand (e.g. 10 --> 14 when the 13th card is an ace) is unauthorized for you.

[Vampyr]

GreenMan, on 2013-April-28, 22:52, said:

Ergo, the fact that partner might actually have an opening hand (e.g. 10 --> 14 when the 13th card is an ace) is unauthorized for you.

Yes, I realise that, and as it happens 14 was exactly what he did have. If you haven't read the question please don't waste my and other readers' headspace by answering.

The question was whether I am permitted to notice/call attention to the fact that partner has left a card in the board.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-29, 01:12, said:

Yes, I realise that, and as it happens 14 was exactly what he did have. If you haven't read the question please don't waste my and other readers' headspace by answering.

The question was whether I am permitted to notice/call attention to the fact that partner has left a card in the board.

He responded to blackshoe's reply. He's allowed to do that.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2013-April-29, 03:56, said:

He responded to blackshoe's reply. He's allowed to do that.

Or at least added to it in a totally redundant way, repeating in the process the Law I quoted in the OP.

[VixTD]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-29, 01:12, said:

The question was whether I am permitted to notice/call attention to the fact that partner has left a card in the board.

I think the failure to remove all his cards from the board and look at their faces was a breach of Laws 7B1 and 7B2 and therefore an irregularity, and that you are allowed to draw attention to it (Law 9A1).

[GreenMan]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-29, 05:46, said:

Or at least added to it in a totally redundant way, repeating in the process the Law I quoted in the OP.

If you only want replies that meet your own standards, go find a website you can control and post there. Or ask better questions.

[Vampyr]

GreenMan, on 2013-April-29, 18:31, said:

If you only want replies that meet your own standards, go find a website you can control and post there. Or ask better questions.

"Knowledge of the replacement of a card is unauthorized for the partner of a player whose hand contained an incorrect number of cards" was not a question, and didn't need to be restated in a slightly different way; though if it did, "It means he's not authorized to use it in determining his calls or plays" covered it nicely. But thanks for contributing.

[blackshoe]

Take it easy you two.