[duschek]

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?

[iviehoff]

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.

This post has been edited by iviehoff: 2009-December-17, 10:24

[PeterE]

iviehoff, on Dec 17 2009, 11:23 AM, said:

So it is too late to do anything about it.

mmmh ... all right, but ... declarer has to substitue ♦A with any of his spades