[blml] played or not?

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 8/7/07, Grattan Endicott <grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Grattan Endicott
> grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
> [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
> ****************************
> "
> vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "André Steffens" <andre.steffens at hccnet.nl>
> To: <blml at amsterdamned.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 5:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [blml] played or not?
>
>
>
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>
> The contract is 3NT but declarer is confused and he thinks  he's playing 5
> diamonds. He plays a card from hand and instructs dummy to "ruff". When the
> table stops laughing, the director is called.
> Has the lowest diamond been played or not?
> --
> Herman DE WAEL
>
> -----------------------------
>
> Law 46B:
> In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be
> played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's
> different intention is incontrovertible)
>
> To me it seems that declarer's intention was incontrovertible to play a
> small diamond.
>
> André
>
> +=+ Law 45 determines whether a card has been played. Which
> condition in Law 45 has been satisfied?
>                                                             ~ Grattan ~
> +=+

I'll bite. Sounds easy.  The answer to Grattan's question is Law 45B:
"Director plays a card from dummy by naming the card"  If declarer's
intention is incontrovertible from his attempt to name the card, then
the intended card is deemed played by Law 46B0.  The only remaining
issue, it seems to me, is whether his intention to play a small
diamond was incontrovertible.  I think the information we have is not
quite sufficient to be sure, though I suspect it was incontrovertible.

Jerry Fusselman