[campboy]

 pran, on 2015-July-16, 14:08, said:

Until your partner has failed to follow suit you are not attempting to prevent him from committing an irregularity, you are communicating with him by illegal means.

Isn't the opposite true? If you wait until your partner has failed to follow suit you are not attempting to prevent him from committing an irregularity; you are drawing attention to an irregularity he's already committed.

[aguahombre]

 campboy, on 2015-July-17, 05:19, said:

Isn't the opposite true? If you wait until your partner has failed to follow suit you are not attempting to prevent him from committing an irregularity; you are drawing attention to an irregularity he's already committed.

You are preventing the establishment of a revoke -- a separate irregularity. You may or may not be drawing attention to an irregularity already committed. Maybe he actually was out of the suit.

[RMB1]

 aguahombre, on 2015-July-17, 05:58, said:

You are preventing the establishment of a revoke -- a separate irregularity. ...

Why is establishing a revoke an irregularity? Is it irregular for the offending side to play to the next trick?

[barmar]

 pran, on 2015-July-16, 15:07, said:

I don't know if this is specific for Internet Explorer but when I type in text for a post I have several font and special character selectors just above the frame where I type my text.

I know how to change the font and size when I'm composing a message. But when someone else does that in their post, I don't see it in their chosen font/size.

The interesting thing is that I see the font and style changes in THIS message, perhaps because it's by myself.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2015-July-17, 08:37, said:

I know how to change the font and size when I'm composing a message. But when someone else does that in their post, I don't see it in their chosen font/size.

The interesting thing is that I see the font and style changes in THIS message, perhaps because it's by myself.

And how will we know when our attempt to emphasize a particular word reaches the point of annoyance to Andy? PhilK and Timo might want the answer to that.

[barmar]

I'm not sure what gnasher was going on about. I looked at the raw source of the post he quoted, it didn't use an irritating font. Some words were in bold-italic, that's it.

Irritating was when Lurpoa used to post everything in large Comic Sans with her trademark big hearts strewn about.

[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2015-July-17, 05:58, said:

You are preventing the establishment of a revoke -- a separate irregularity. You may or may not be drawing attention to an irregularity already committed. Maybe he actually was out of the suit.

Some irregularities cannot be legally prevented, revoke is one of them because you cannot know that a revoke is in progress until it is actually committed. You don't even then know if it is a revoke until you have verified whether he is really void in the suit. And that is where Law 61 is relevant. It does not allow a player to prevent a revoke from being committed but it allows him to prevent it from becoming established.

However, if you for instance notice your partner (or any player) about to pull a card from his hand when you know it is not his turn to play you have every right to stop him in the act.

[gnasher]

 barmar, on 2015-July-17, 08:54, said:

I'm not sure what gnasher was going on about. I looked at the raw source of the post he quoted, it didn't use an irritating font. Some words were in bold-italic, that's it.

Irritating was when Lurpoa used to post everything in large Comic Sans with her trademark big hearts strewn about.

Irritation is in the eye of the beholder.