[blml] Réf. : played or not?

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
****************************
"A man forever undone by
 the second p in problem,"
                        [Epitaph]
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jerry Fusselman" <jfusselman at gmail.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Réf. : played or not?


>> +=+ I suggest you have to go to Law 46B5.
>>        Declarer has indicated a 'play'.
>>        In what he said he did not indicate a rank or suit.
>>        That seems to be what 46B5 says. The parenthesis
>>        has no part in the substance of the law.
>>                                                            ~ Grattan ~
>> +=+
>
> Wold you please expand on your last sentence?  Are you saying that
> parenthetical expressions have no legal force and can just as well be
> removed from the laws?
>
> I thought the parenthetical in the first sentence of Law 46B was clear
> and overriding.  What it says to me is if someone uses the wrong name,
> such as "deuce of clubs" or "deuce of clovers" for example, it names
> the card just as clearly as stating "two of clubs"---provided
> declarer's meaning is incontrovertible.  Otherwise, Grattan, what law
> makes "deuce of clubs" or "deuce of clovers" clear?
>
> Also, Law 46B5 seems to have no bearing on this case.  Declarer did
> not say "play anything" or words of like import.  The parenthetical
> phrase at the beginning of Law 46B seems to me to override the need to
> apply Law 46B5:  If his intention is indeed incontrovertible that the
> suit he designated is diamonds even though he never said the word
> diamonds, then Law 46B2 applies and the card he is deemed to have
> played is the smallest diamond.
>
> I had never before heard this notion that parenthetical phrases have
> no part in the substance of the law.  Has this been written before?
>
> -Jerry Fusselman
>
+=+ Parenthesis expands, qualifies or explains. The basic law can be
read omitting the parenthetical inlay.  This is not new, it is Kaplanesque.
                                               ~ G ~   +=+