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

[Jerry Fusselman]

Richard wrote:
>
> I naively believe that:
>
> (1) Law 45A defines proper procedure for a player
> other than dummy to play a card.
>
> (2) Law 45B defines proper procedure for declarer to
> play a card from dummy's hand, with either declarer
> calling for dummy to play a card, or alternatively
> declarer reaching over to dummy's hand in order for
> declarer to play the card themself.
>
> (3) Law 46A clarifies what declarer should do if
> declarer elects to call for dummy to play a card.
>
> (4) Law 46B clauses 1, 2, 3 and 5 clarify what
> restrictions apply if declarer incompletely calls
> for a card.
>
> (5) Law 46B clause 4 clarifies what restrictions
> apply if declarer erroneously calls for a card.
>

You are wrong about Law 46B4:  It is not about the case where declarer
erroneously calls for a card.  It is about the case where declarer
calls for a card not in dummy *and* his intent in not
incontrovertible:  It starts, "If declarer calls a card that is not in
dummy" and it can be applied only when his intent is not
"incontrovertible."  Quite a difference.

For example, it appears to me that you would say that (cutely) calling
for the 2 of clovers calls for a card not in dummy, but I think if
declarer's clear intent was the 2 of clubs, the director has no
business applying Law 46B4 because of the parenthetical phrase in Law
46B.

> Therefore, in my naive opinion, "incontrovertible
> intent" does not define the border between Law 45B
> and Law 46B.
>

Apparently you think there can be a case in which declarer's words
neither names nor otherwise designates a specific card---but somehow
his words show an incontrovertible intent to play a specific card
(Otherwise, I think you would agree with my border). That would be
amazing to witness.  Yours is not a naive position; it is so
sophisticated that I cannot imagine it.

Also, which law would you say applies in that case?  It cannot be
45C4a, because (by definition) the words did not name or otherwise
designate a specific card.  It cannot be any part of Law 46B either,
because (by definition) declarer's intent is incontrovertible.

I simply concluded that the lawmakers intended no such case, for they
did not want leave directors out in the cold, vainly searching for the
proper law.

> Declarer's intent is relevant to a ruling under Law
> 45C4(b) "Correction of Inadvertent Designation", but
> my naive opinion is that the inadvertent designation
> of a card can be corrected regardless of whether the
> inadvertent designation was complete or incomplete.
>

I don't think anyone was talking about inadvertent designations in
this thread, and I do not see the relevance.

I don't get your (snipped) bit about Sir Humphrey.  Maybe you would
like to explain that part.

Jerry Fusselman


Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and send him all of your money immediately.  This email,
including attachments (though there are none), may contain worthwhile
ideas and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination, parody, disagreement, sarcasm, disproof, or other use
of this information by persons or entities other than the commissioner
of baseball is prohibited.