|
How do you come to the conclusion that there is in addition a fifth exception that does not involve another runner? (Using only the printed rule)?
The lone runner stipulation can't be inferred from the printed rule. This is what Bob Mauger (NJ UIC) told me. Apparently it has come down from on high.
The way the new rule is written, Abel would indeed be given first in #1 (there was no subsequent play on a different runner). However, there is supposedly a "lone runner" exception that the book neglected to state.
I don't know why they decided on ruling the way they did. Again, this is only what I've been told.
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
|