lamford, on 2014-January-22, 12:09, said:
Well, under 45D: "If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick <snip>."
Did declarer name the ten of diamonds? No, he said "ten". He is deemed to play the ten of diamonds under 46B3a, but he is not deemed to have named the ten of diamonds. So, the correct procedure is that the ten of diamonds is withdrawn.
You are carrying things too far to claim that declarer has not "named" the
♦10 for the purposes of the Laws. Law 46 - which covers complete designations as well as incomplete ones - is couched in terms of "calling" for a card rather than "naming" it, and it is clear that "call" here and "name" in Law 45 essentially refer to the same thing. I really do not think it is reasonable to contend that completion of the "call" of a card under the provisions of Law 46C3(a) does not constitute "naming" it for the purposes of Law 45, not least because otherwise a normal, complete "call" that fully complies with Law 46A could also fail your "name" test.
The Laws do not specify the "names" of cards (they specify in Law 1 labels for the suits and the ranks but, if I am going to be as picky as you, do not specify how these are combined to name a specific card). Is the name of the card in question the "10 of Diamonds"? The "Diamond 10"? Both? One but not the other? Something else as well? Is the next higher card the "Jack of Diamonds" but never the "Knave of Diamonds"?
Moreover, even if you contend that declarer has not satisfied the requirements of Law 45B, there is still Law 45C4(a) "A card must be played if a player names
or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play" (my emphasis). To contend that neither of these Laws applies in these circumstances, but that instead Law 45D, which is clearly intended for a wholly different set of circumstances, kicks in is, in my view, to carry language-lawyering to a risible extreme, and one that the drafting precision of the Laws was never intended to accommodate or embrace. (I refer you to the fate of the narrator of Ian McEwan's "Solid Geometry".)