[blml] Only unanimous comments please.

[Grattan Endicott]

from Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*****************************
"Reason's whole pleasure, all the 
                               joys of sense,
 Lie in three words, health, peace, 
                          and competence."
                       -~ Alexander Pope. 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
+=+ There are a number of questions the Director has 
to resolve. The level of proof required is 'the balance 
of probabilities' - the preponderance of the evidence 
he is able to collect. 
       First, let us be clear that 'the 5' does not designate
a card within the meaning of 45C4(a). But it is a 
'designation' within the meaning* of 45C4(b). So the
Director must judge whether there has been a change
of an 'inadvertent' (i.e. unintended) designation within
the terms of 45C4(b).
      Second, if the Director rules that 'the 5' was not
inadvertent - was an intended utterance - or that the 
change of designation did not meet the criterion of
'without pause for thought', he moves into Law 46B3.
     Third, he must then determine whether 3(a) applies 
- here I believe the card was not a lead. If that is so,
or if there is no card in dummy to fit the requirements 
of (a), he moves to 3(b).  
     Finally he then applies 46B3(b). 
At each stage the law tells him explicitly how he is to 
rule on the basis of the evidence he has collected.and 
his judgement of the balance of probabilities.
     Personally I think there has been too much 'mouth' 
invoked in this thread, instead of law.   Further, the
Director is required to rule equally for a representative 
of the 'low-life scum' as for any other player - both in 
regard to the merits of his/her case and in regard to 
the application of Law 74A1.  
     [* compare 'designates' etc. in Law 46.]
                                        ~ Grattan ~   +=+


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Only unanimous comments please.


> Herman wrote:
> 
> > I believe Tim is wrong, and I stand by my 
> > interpretation that as soon as a player opens 
> > his mouth, the card that he intended to name 
> > has been played.
> 
> So the player says "Hmm, the..".  Which card 
> is played?  There is no bridge reason that declarer 
> should not change his mind after seeing  LHO's 
> card and before completing his call and IMO 
> only low-life scum would actually want declarer 
> to be forced to play a card when he *clearly* 
> hasn't designated one in this situation.  It's the 
> same as with spoken bidding where "Two hear
.. spades" is purely a matter of possible  UI and 
> there is no question of applying L25/27 etc 
> because the 2H bid hasn't been made.
> 
> Tim
>