[blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2

[Tim West-Meads]

Ed wrote:

> Given that Law 58B says nothing about intent, I would call "perhaps"  
> an underbid. Of course, you still may have a problem if the offender  
> blurts out his intent. Thus, it seems to me intent is irrelevant, and 
>  should be ignored even if stated or if somebody or other thinks it's 
>  obvious.

Of course it should be ignored when applying L58b - regardless of intent 
the player can choose to play a a card exposed accidentally instead of 
the card he intended to lead.

However, once we get to L50 "inadvertency" is a key test re MPC/mPC.  
Commonly, when playing two cards to a trick, one is intended and the 
other gets stuck to it (occasionally neither is the intended lead).
This situation very seldom requires mind-reading.  A modicum of bridge 
logic and a question such as "What happened?" will get the right result.
Sure as a TD one might, once in a blue moon, conclude that offender is a 
lying cheat but there is nothing to stop one from ruling on that basis.  
Generally playing 2 cards is seldom advantageous and we have L72b1 if 
necessary even then.

Tim