[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 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Réf. : played or not?


>> +=+ Parenthesis expands, qualifies or explains. The basic law can be
>> read omitting the parenthetical inlay.  This is not new, it is 
>> Kaplanesque.
>>                                               ~ G ~   +=+
>
> But you are not saying the parenthetical inlay has no force, no
> meaning, or no purpose.  This distinction between basic law and what's
> the other kind---less-basic law?---does it have any relevance to the
> original posting?
>
> What law makes "deuce of clubs" or "deuce of clovers" clear?  It seems
> to me the parenthetical inlay is the only part of the law that makes
> it clear that "two of clubs" is what is deemed played.  Whether the
> parenthetical inlay is called "basic law" or not seems rather moot.
>
+=+ As to what argument could persuade me in an appeal
committee, I would listen with care to any suggestion that
declarer has not played any card because he has not given
any instruction as to a play consistent with a No Trumps
contract.   ~ G ~   +=+