[blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2

[John Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Willner" <willner at cfa.harvard.edu>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 2:27 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2


> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au
>> However, as you attempt to lead the deuce of
>> spades, you unintentionally drop both the
>> queen of spades and the deuce of spades
>> simultaneously face up on the table.
>
> We had a very long thread on this subject perhaps three or four years
> ago.  As already seen in the current thread, opinion was split but
> fiercely held on both sides.  I'm slightly surprised there is no WBFLC
> minute on the subject by now -- or have I missed one?

Max IIRC has come down in favour of Major pen card, but has grave doubts.
He can stand minor pen card. The fundamental is whether the TD tries to 
establish intent - and perhaps he shouldn't.

cheers John

>
> Richard's case has a new wrinkle in that defender's probable intention
> can be inferred from the bridge situation.  In more common cases, the
> original intention can't be known without mind reading.
>
> My own opinion (FWIW) will come as no surprise to regular readers: read
> L58B2 literally -- 'proposes' is present tense, not past -- and dismiss
> any interpretation that requires mind reading.  L10C1 may also be
> relevant.  And "equity" proponents should be happy with the least
> penalty that preserves the rights of the NOS.  (No villain will expect
> to gain by dropping two cards on the table.)  Despite that, one can see
> how some people will take the opposite view.
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml