[blml] Réf. : Re: Fw: played or not?

[David Barton]

> Alain Gottcheiner wrote:
>>
>
>> So, the problem boils down to a single question : which part of L46 do
>> we apply ?
>>
>> 1. He infracted L46A, but note the conditional form "should", which
>> means there will usually be no penalty.
>
> And indeed there is no penalty for calling diamonds "koekes" or "trumps".
>
>> 2. L46B1 obviously doesn't apply
>
> Well, it does in the sense that the lowest of the suit will be played,
> but I agree that is not important.
>
>> 3. L46B2 doesn't apply, because "trumps" isn't the name of a suit.
>
> neither is "koekes". Note that L46B2 uses "designates". Surely if he
> says "ruff" when there are trumps, the trump suit is designated?
>
>> 4. L46B3 is irrelevant.
>
> agreed.
>
>>
>> So there remain only two possibilities :
>> 1. Either consider "no card called" (46B4) : declarer does what he wants
>> and gets a lecture on L74B1.
>
> No, this one surely cannot apply. Either you consider that a card has
> been specified, and then that card is a low diamond and there is
> obviously one in dummy - or you consider that no card has been
> specified and then L46B4 does not apply.
>
>> 2. Or consider he called an unspecified card (46B5) : a defender may
>> call for any card.
>>
>
> Yes, but in that case we come to the "unless the intention was
> incontrovertible" bit. If we believe that a card has been played
> (because ruff is a definite order, we only don't know which card is
> meant) and we want to come to L46B5, then either: the opponents can
> throw away an Ace, or: declarer can state that he clearly intended to
> throw a low diamond).
>
>> Since 46B5 doesn't apply when one calls a card absent from dummy, a
>> griffin, or sneezes, I'd say it doesn't apply here either.
>>
>> But considering he has to play a low diamond and nothing else isn't
>> supported by L46.
>>
>> Note that, according to the wording of L46B, "uncontrovertible" applies
>> only to wipe out restrictions, not to create them, so that the fact that
>> we know he wanted to play a diamond isn't relevant.
>>
>
> Of course it's relevant. If he says "koekes" he has played a diamond.
> So if he says "ruff" and we know he means a diamond, why hasn't he
> played a diamond?
>
>> Did I touch all bases ?
>>

(A) Perhaps we should compare and contrast this with the case (debated
at length) where declarer leads towards AQ in dummy and nominates
" The Qu.... oh the Ace" (previous player having played the K).

Now we could rule that "the Qu" was simply a duck noise and could be
ignored.

We could rule that "the Qu" does not designate a card since it does not
name a suit and rank.

We could rule that declarer has nominated a card that does not exist in
dummy and declarer is free to nominate any other card.

We DO rule that that "the Qu" does constitute a card having been nominated.
We DO rule that any subsequent attempt to substitute another card is too 
late
in accordance with L45.4(b)
We DO rule that it was declarer's incontrovertible intention to play the Q.

Put me in Herman's camp. - Sorry Herman that is usually a "kiss of death".

(B) Is the case of "ruff" any different from "ruff with the 3"? if the 3 of 
D
is in the dummy?

*****************************************
  david.j.barton at lineone.net
*****************************************



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.483 / Virus Database: 269.11.17/951 - Release Date: 13/08/2007 10:15