[blml] Réf. : played or not?

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 8/8/07, Alain Gottcheiner <agot at ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> At 21:27 7/08/2007 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote:
>
> >+=+ Parenthesis expands, qualifies or explains. The basic law can be
> >read omitting the parenthetical inlay.  This is not new, it is Kaplanesque.
>
> It is more general : it is grammatical.
> "Parentheses introduce a comment, an information, a reflexion, an
> explanation, necessary or not, to help understand the remainider of the text"
> (translated from "proto typo", M. Bourdain / M. Burny)
>
> - inference : it is not part of the main text.
>

Alright, then I suggest that the famous parenthetical in Law 46B
limits the applicability of Law 46B (as everyone agrees), but does so
the following way:  Some of the cases that one might have thought
should be covered by Law 46B are instead covered by Law 45B; the
phrase "naming the card" in Law 45B includes all cases where
declarer's intention is incontrovertible; the lawmakers imagined that
when declarer states which card to play, either he named a card with
incontrovertible intention or he didn't---and Law 45B or 46B applies,
respectively.

I don't think the lawmakers had any intention of making a third
category whereby the declarer's intention is incontrovertible but he
has not yet named a card.

-Jerry Fusselman