[blml] Only unanimous comments please.

[Adam Beneschan]

Tony wrote:
 
> Since Herman got in first on this unanimous only
> thread, I am afraid further correspondence is closed.

Well, since the subject line asked for "only unanimous comments", and
since the body of your question said "only supporting arguments
please", then by this logic I suppose you could have closed the
correspondence before *anyone* responded.

:-)

The reason I said "No comment" before was because I really wanted to
offer a non-supporting comment; but apparently that has been breached
now.  I do have a problem:


> A fellow director has asked me the following:
>
>                             S   --
>                             H   9 5
>                             D   5
>                             C  --
>
> S  8
> H  7
> D  6
> C --
>
>                              S  5
>                              H  10
>                              D  --
>                              C  Q
>
> three cards are left, hearts are trumps, declarer
> leads the club Q intending to discard the diamond
> 5 from dummy.  However, West ruffs and declarer
> calls five..oh! 9 of hearts..all in one breath.

We (a lot of us) seem to be assuming that the "five" referred to the
diamond five, but can we prove that?  It's plausible to suppose that
declarer *did* notice the ruff, and then seeing the 9-5 or hearts in
dummy simply slipped and named the wrong one at first.  So why
wouldn't we allow the change---unless we can determine, at the table,
that declarer likely didn't notice the ruff and was about to call for
the diamond?  But none of us on BLML were at the table, so we can't
know that.

OK, some seem to think that seeing "five..oh! 9 of hearts" typed in is
enough to divine declarer's thoughts.  Not for me.  Maybe I just don't
possess as much psychic ability as other BLMLers.  Or maybe it's
because I'm using a deficient e-mail program.

By the way, if I had been the declarer, the TD could have known that
my "five" was *not* an attempt to play the diamond---because I almost
never state the rank when discarding or leading a singleton from
dummy, I'd just say "diamond".  (Not that I expect the TD to know
that when they rule.)

As for Herman's interpretation:
 
> I have alreeady once said that as soon as he opens his mouth, he has 
> played a card. We may not yet know for certain which card, and L46 may 
> apply in deciding which one it is (including the incontrovertibility 
> of partial utterances).
> So if he says "five" he has played a five. 

This strikes me as being equivalent to saying "Law 45C4(b) doesn't
exist in my law book".  Perhaps I'm not understanding correctly.

Of course, the real answer is that as soon as declarer noticed the
ruff, she should have said "five..oh! sh*t" and then case law would
have allowed her to play any card she pleased.

                                -- Adam