[blml] [blml played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Grattan Endicott:

>>>>+=+ Parenthesis expands, qualifies or explains. The basic law can
>>>>be read omitting the parenthetical inlay.  This is not new, it is
>>>>Kaplanesque.
>>>>                                               ~ G ~   +=+

Jerry Fusselman:

>>>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.

Grattan Endicott:

>>+=+ 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 ~   +=+

Law 46B preamble:

"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):"

Richard Hills:

Perhaps I can translate the Grattanese / Kaplanese.  The way that the
Law 46B preamble should be parsed is that the parenthetical "(except
when declarer's different intent is incontrovertible)" is a modifier
to "an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card".

If declarer calls "cup of tea please", that is not an erroneous call
of a card, it is not any sort of call of a card, even if declarer
only asks for a cup of tea when about to play a diamond, thus making
declarer's intent incontrovertible.

Likewise, declarer calling "ruff" in a notrump contract is not an
erroneous call of a card, it is not any sort of call of a card.

Nigel Guthrie, quoting Mr. Eliot's Sunday Morning Service:

>Sweeney shifts from ham to ham
>Stirring the water in his bath.
>The masters of the subtle schools
>Are controversial, polymath.

Richard Hills, quoting Mr. Gilbert's Iolanthe:

The Law is the true embodiment
Of everything that's excellent.
It has no kind of fault or flaw,
And I, my Lords, embody the Law.

:-)


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm