duschek Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Declarer plays a diamond contract. Lead is in dummy. Declarer asks for a spade. RHO ruffs, and declarer overruffs with the ♦A. "No more spades?", asks LHO. Declarer discovers what has happended and says he thought he asked for a diamond (he does have a few spades). The TD arrives and establishes the following facts:1) Declarer did ask for a spade.2) Declarer intended to ask for a diamond. The ruling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iviehoff Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 (edited) 45C4 (b) (unintended designation) permits the correction of a mis-speak in calling for a card from dummy, provided "partner" has not yet played to the trick. ("Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought.") For these purposes, I think that it is reasonable to interpret that declarer is the "partner" of dummy. This law pretty much only applies to the situation of declarer calling for a card from dummy, so that must be the intended meaning. So it is too late to do anything about it. Edited to disable the emoticon. Edited December 17, 2009 by iviehoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterE Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 So it is too late to do anything about it.mmmh ... all right, but ... declarer has to substitue ♦A with any of his spades :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.