[BLML] Slip of the Forked Tongue (3)

gampas at aol.com gampas at aol.com
Mon Nov 8 19:09:01 CET 2010

[Eric Landau]
In the original thread case, it would be absurd to assume that the
player didn't mean what he said but was keeping it a secret.  I don't
see how Paul can conclude that it was "an obvious slip of the tongue"
given that the player involved has at no point spoken up to say so.
IME, someone who makes an obvious slip of the tongue cannot be
stopped from stating so even when it is inappropriate for him to do
so.  At no point was there any suggestion of the player in the
original scenario asserting that he meant to say "spade finesse"
rather than "club finesse", so why would anyone think to assume so?

[Paul Lamford] The absurdity is in what your write. The original thread 

"West stated that it did not fall, and he presumed declarer meant the 
spade finesse"

This would have immediately drawn attention to the claimer's slip of 
the tongue, but in any case someone who thought he said "spade finesse" 
would not have any reason to stated that he said something else unless 
he was told that he had.

The whole principle of the Laws is that mechanical errors in bidding 
and spoken errors in calling for cards from dummy are corrected. It 
would be absurd to assume that Eric Landau didn't mean what he wrote 
but was keeping it a secret as well.

"Why would anyone think to assume so", you ask? Because of the way he 
phrased it.

More information about the Blml mailing list