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

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 8/11/07, Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be> wrote:
>
> If however, by some secret code "the green suit" means "diamonds"
> (like we have in flemish: "koekes") then a player cannot use L1 to say
> that he has not designated diamonds. Similarly, a player who says
> "trumps" cannot say he has not indicated diamonds. This player intends
> to play the D2, and whether he touches it, or says "the two", or
> "diamond", or "koekes", or "trumps", or "ruff" should make no difference.
>

It is plain to me that Herman is right.  Can anyone on the other side
explain which action from this list (assuming declarer's intention is
incontrovertible for each) is inadequate to rule the card played---and
why?  The point, it seems to me, is if intention is incontrovertible,
the law calls the card played just as surely as if he pulled the card
from dummy himself.  If he clearly and incontrovertibly meant to play
the D2, whether he pulls the card himself or calls for it in a
less-than-perfect manner, that is the card he played under the laws.

Asking for a cup of tea is not what we are talking about, for that
doesn't incontrovertibly name a card.

Jerry Fusselman