[blml] played or not?

[Eric Landau]

On Aug 8, 2007, at 7:53 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote:

> At 18:20 7/08/2007 +0200, André Steffens wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> And how do you assess that it was a diamond that he intended as  
> trump ? If
> you ask him what he intended to be trumps, he would be too ashamed  
> to answer.

And rulings shouldn't depend on the degree of shame involved, should  
they?  Do we really want to constrain the honest novice who gets  
flustered into answering, but not the more sophisticated player who  
knows to say, "Gosh, I don't know what I was thinking"?  Where's  
Nigel when we need him?

> (Herman's second example, where declarer points to a specific card,  
> is of
> course different)

When declarer points to a specific card that is a legal designation  
of that card.  When there is a trump in the dummy, "ruff"  
incontrovertably calls for a small trump.  When the contract is in  
notrump, "ruff" is just a dog noise.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net