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

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 8/11/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:
>
> Ed, Jerry and I are willing to admit that "cup of tea" is a
> statement which shows that declarer _incontrovertibly intends_
> to play the five of diamonds, ...

No, not me.

>
> The primary issue is whether calling "ruff" in a 3NT contract
> is either:
>
> (a) a Landauesque dog noise (Law 90B2 applies), or
>
> (b) a designation of a card not in dummy (Law 46B4 applies, as
> modified by the Law 46B preamble's statement "declarer's
> different intent is incontrovertible".
>

or (c) an incontrovertible designation of a specific card in dummy.
The original poster gives us the fact that declarer thinks he is
playing a diamond contract, so (c) looks right.

> That is, Herman has misread Law 46 by arguing that "intent"
> determines *whether* there has been a designation of a card.
>

As I have in vain asked twice before in this thread, what other way is
there to read the laws so that the director can take proper action
when declarer calls for a deuce instead of a two?  I.e., if the
parenthetical at the beginning of Law 46B does not help resolve that
case, what part of the law does?

> Rather, Law 46 merely states that *after* a determination has
> been made that a card has been designated, an incontrovertible
> "intent" modifies the subsequent determination of *which* card
> has been designated.

Again^3, which law allows a director to rule that deuce means two if
he must ignore the parenthetical at the beginning of Law 46B?

-Jerry Fusselman