[blml] played or not?

[raija]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:50 AM
Subject: [blml] played or not?


> 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
> Antwerpen Belgium



I think it should be established all that happened, like
A.
1. Declarer's incontrovertible intention was to play a trump when he said 
"ruff",  but there were no trumps in dummy - or anywhere else in this hand.
2. Then comes laughing.
3. Then declarer said "oh I thought diamonds were trump".
4. Then TD is called.
5. Then someone told declarer the contract is 3NT.
6. TD makes ruling on what card declarer must play.

Or is it
B.
1. Incontrovertible intention to play a trump.
2. Laughing.
3. TD called
4. Contract is 3NT
5. "I thought diamonds were trump"
6. TD ruling.

If diamond is considered played, then: If declarer had just said "ooohhh" or 
"oops" ,  what Law would support the idea that _a diamond was played_ when 
nobody knows what declarer's mistaken thought was?  Or is TD required to 
embarrass the declarer by making him fess'up what his muddled mistake was, 
and then make him play whatever he thought was trump, while there was no 
trump suit in this hand. Why?

Just food for thought for the real law experts.  IMO, obviously no card has 
been played.

Raija