[blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy?

[Hirsch Davis]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy?
>
> The point is that your ruling is different according to the words the
> declarer uses, even if his intention in all cases is exactly the same.
> That does not strike you as odd?
> And it does not strike you as possible that another interpretation
> might exist in which all these cases will be ruled the same?
> And you would not consider that interpretation to be superior?
>
> Strange.
>
> Please continue to be misguided.
> -- 
> Herman DE WAEL
> Antwerpen Belgium
> http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html
>

Exactly.  You've finally seen it, although you don't get it yet. The ruling 
is based on the card designated by the player's words or actions, not by 
whatever thoughts happen to be flitting about in his head.

Intention has absolutely nothing to do with any of these rulings. The FLB is 
silent on what Declarer intended when he designates a card (insert usual 
disclaimer about Law 45C4(b) here.) The Laws are framed in terms of what 
Declarer said or did ("otherwise designates" in 45C4(a) covers pointing).

Sometimes this might work to Declarer's advantage (the phrase "trump" gets a 
correct card designated, while an exact naming of a card that Declarer 
thinks is trump (but actually is not) gets a wrong card played. That's the 
breaks of the game. It's up to the lawmakers to fix this, if they even think 
it's a problem. Nothing odd about it. Declarer may have had the same intent 
in both cases, but L45 is not about intent, except in one and only one 
place.

Herman, if the lawmakers had intended that Declarer's intent had any 
relevance to the designation of a card, the Laws would say so (and do so in 
the one place where it does matter).

This is probably my first post in over 10 years.  I've been off the list, 
and recently rejoined (I should probably talk to a therapist about that). 
Nothing's changed, except some faces. A thread that should take about three 
posts goes on interminably when TFLB is completely clear on the topic. I can 
see a debate about the wisdom of the laws failing to take Declarer's intent 
into account (personally I think it's a good thing whenever the Laws do not 
try to get into a player's head, but I can see why others might think 
differently), but these rulings are crystal clear under the Laws as they are 
currently written.

Creative "interpretation" of the Laws, on the other hand, is a serious 
problem.  A simple ruling out of TFLB should be the same anywhere in the 
world. When experienced Directors "interpret", rather than simply read TFLB 
and rule accordingly, why call it a Law Book?  Maybe we should call it a 
book of "suggestions" instead.

Hirsch Davis
Rockville MD