law 45C1

[jdonn]

It is easy enough to find out whether a card is played, and TDs do not find it difficult: why do we have to use something else that is not relevant to the Law?

If a TD finds the determination easy then this guideline doesn't apply, and thus you don't use something else that's not relevant to the laws. The guideline would only apply in a situation where the TD does find the determination difficult, that's what doubt is. You are creating a straw man.

 

As for what Sven said, if he did not mean what he said, fair enough, but I still think it is reasonable to assume he meant it: he said that if in doubt you assume partner has seen it if declarer has.  Seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me.

Try barmar's posts if you want to continue since I give up. I guess you must think you are the only one among us who can read. To be clear, open your mind and consider that what you believe he said may either not be what he said or not mean exactly what you think it means.

[pran]

Sven: The laws state that a card must be played if partner can see it.   You stated that you would rule a card must be played if declarer had seen it.

 

Jdonn: I still consider the hesitation analogy exactly similar.  It is not as though one has any difficulty in this.  But what we were told is that if there is a difficulty, it is decided by one irrelevant fact.  You said we should use all the facts, but we were told that Norway is prepared to decide on one of the least relevant facts.

 

We were told that if in doubt, you use this approach: if that is not what he meant, why did he say it? I do not think it unreasonable that I am assuming he meant what he said.

No, I never say that I would rule a card must be played if declarer had seen it.

 

I said that if the Director cannot determine from other evidence whether partner could have seen the card then the deciding factor is whether or not declarer (or maybe dummy) had seen it so that he could name it.

 

And you were never told that Norway is prepared to decide on one of the least relevant facts, you were told that we are prepared to decide on the only remaining available fact that had some relevance when the director is unable to resolve the situation from better evidence.

 

I have certainly meant what I have said, but I have not said what you stubbornly continue insulting me by stating that I have said.

 

There is a major difference between absolute and conditional statements and I should expect you of all to know this difference (and observe all the conditions, not just one). Fortunately I notice that most other posters here seem to know.

 

Sven