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

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*************************
"Progress is not an accident but
 a necessity."
                      {Herbert Spencer}
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> Richard uses his well-know tactic of obfuscation.
> Beneath a stack of drivel is usually buried a pearl
> of wisdom. Let's snip the former and get to the latter:
>
+=+ I am inclined to ask myself a question or two....
1. Has the player named or otherwise designated
a card? [45C4(a)]
2. Has he stated both the rank and the suit of a card?
[46A]
3. Has he indicated a play without designating either
a suit or rank? [46B5]
.............................................................................,
Somewhere among these questions the answer must
lie. If he is deemed to have 'indicated a play' he has
certainly not designated rank and suit. (This question
of fact arises before the Director asks him any question
and his subsequent response to a question does not
change the facts as to whether he did designate a card
as the laws specify.)
The unanswered question, as to the law, is whether
'indicates a play' is to be construed as 'a legal play',
whether reference to a ruff when there is no trump suit
has any meaning. This is a matter of interpretation. I do
not know of any interpretation of this law by the WBFLC.
Unless someone can point to one, the question of an
interim interpretation devolves upon the Director in the
absence of a recorded interim interpretation by the NBO
or the Zonal Authority. The Director will determine
accordingly whether to rule that Law 45B5 applies or
whether to rule that no (legal) play has been indicated.
                           ~ Grattan ~  +=+