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

[Brian]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:10:29 +0100
Nigel <Guthrie at NTLworld.com> wrote:

> 
> [Nige1]
> 
> Hilarious stuff :) To provide an apt context for their coruscating 
> wit, both Brian and Eric snipped the first part of my post, which 
> explained the *current* alternative which seems to be...
> 

Well, good for you if you found humour in there, Nigel. It was meant to
be constructive criticism of your suggestion for remedying things. As
such, I didn't think your description of the *current* alternative was
relevant. that wasn't the part I was commenting on. I can't speak for
Eric, but that's why I snipped it. Maybe those of us who quote properly
are a small enough minority these days that it looks unusual. 

> To punish a declarer who legally specifies the wrong card by mistake 
>    but to allow a declarer who illegally employs a sloppy designation 
> to change his mind about the card he intended to play.
> 
> I can understand how hardened BLMLers, who've managed to stomach the 
> WBF concept of "Equity" would have no qualms about this state of 
> affairs; but I'd expect Brian Meadows to be overcome by nausea.
> 
> What would you suggest Brian?
> 

I don't think your suggestion is that bad an idea *provided* the set of
definitions is expanded - and this is one area which would obviously
better handled by local regulation rather than the laws, but NCBOs HAVE
to be compelled (if necessary) to do it before the law is introduced.
Penalising sloppy designations on the current definitions would be an
unmitigated disaster, I'm in 100% agreement with Eric on that point. 

Which is really the point I was making in my previous post. If you
don't want to give the lawyering types an advantage that will last for
years, you have to cover the terms which have become common usage. I'll
certainly plead guilty to using "ruff" rather than "trump with the
lowest <whatever>" myself - but of all the MANY bridge mistakes I've
made, I honestly can't remember my trying to ruff when playing NT. 

And as regards the current Laws, as you will have seen if you read my
reply to David's post, then yes, I think that the person who
names a specific card when wanting to trump, with no mention of the
words "trump" or "ruff", is on a loser compared with the "sloppy
designation". It isn't ideal, but that's the way things are at the
moment. I certainly think that far less players will be disadvantaged
under the current setup than if you introduce your requirement for
naming specific cards without expanding the definitions, so I can
accept the current setup as the lesser of those two particular evils. 


Brian. 



- -- 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGyqQMX39R2QaHMdMRAhCIAKCTPKiyjcY3TJ0SDSNvQnrE30HTdQCfV/2Q
TMZcU4u7/5xBkgtMkarLVwk=
=NfJn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----