Cyberyeti Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 OK, so I'm declaring, dummy has KJ10x of one side suit and Jx of another, I need some discards before playing trumps. I play the first suit and call J from dummy which holds. I don't realise that partner actually played the 10 (and nobody said anything) and the trick is quitted, so when I call J, I'm anticipating there is only one J in dummy, there are in fact 2. Partner pulls the J of the first suit, RHO now ruffs this at the speed of light (way out of tempo) to ensure that there is no way I can correct it. Director is called, now what ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 According to L45D, you are out of luck. Tell partner to get his hearing checked. EDIT: 46B3(a) stipulates that the J of the first suit is really the card you played. Sorry, misread question and have corrected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 Partner pulls the J of the first suit, RHO now ruffs this at the speed of light (way out of tempo) to ensure that there is no way I can correct it. Director is called, now what ? The director will apply Law 45C4(b), the designation "jack" was not intended as the jack dummy was supposed to already have played, so it can be changed, even if the next opponent had played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 The director will apply Law 45C4(b), the designation "jack" was not intended as the jack dummy was supposed to already have played, so it can be changed, even if the next opponent had played. I am sure that you are right, Robin, but I am confused; it seems to me that there is a conflict between this Law and the two I mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 I am sure that you are right, Robin, but I am confused; it seems to me that there is a conflict between this Law and the two I mentioned. You quoted Law 46B3(a) but all of Law 46B is subject to the qualification "except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible". If we decide that declarer intended to designate one jack then the other jack, then I think we should apply Law 45C4(b). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 You quoted Law 46B3(a) but all of Law 46B is subject to the qualification "except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible". If we decide that declarer intended to designate one jack then the other jack, then I think we should apply Law 45C4(b). So you are saying that declarer's "intention" may go back to the previous trick, despite L45D? I thought that once the 45D window closed, there is no going back, so declarer in fact designated the J in the suit just played. Also, I cannot see how declarer's intention could be considered "incontrovertible" when it is possible that he saw that dummy had played the wrong card, and so was designating the J that should have been played. I don't mean to argue with you Robin; it's just that I don't understand. Dummy should definitely get a PP for causing this mess by his breach of 45B (play of Card by Dummy) and probably 74B1 (Paying Insufficient Attention to the Game). Sad that this has to accrue to poor declarer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 So you are saying that declarer's "intention" may go back to the previous trick, despite L45D? No. Declarer intended to play jack1 to trick1, and called for "jack" to achieve that.Declarer intended to play jack2 to trick2, and called for "jack" to achieve that. I think it clear which jack declarer intended to be played to trick2. I am not saying that declarer's intention may go back to the previous trick - there is no question of his intention on trick1. I am saying that declarer's action on the previous trick is evidence of his intention on the next trick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 I see (I think!) Thanks! 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.