[peachy]

There was discussion about a TD ruling where declarer was allowed to change the card he designated from dummy, after both his RHO, he himself, and his LHO had played a card to the trick. Some said this ruling was correct. I can't get myself to agree... What do you all think?


Here is a quote of the Law that I thought applied.

Law 45
- - -
4. (a) A card must be played if a player names or
otherwise designates it as the card he proposes
to play.
( b ) U ntil his partner has played a card, a player
may change an unintended designation if he
does so without pause for thought. If an opponent
has, in turn, played a card that was
legal before the change in designation, that
opponent may withdraw the card so played,
return it to his hand, and substitute another
(see Laws 47D and 16D1).

[duschek]

This is what I think :) [see very recent thread in Simple Rulings forum]

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

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.

[blackshoe]

Declarer call for a club in dummy. Next defender, who is mucking about in her purse, says "I will play the club six". Declarer plays from his hand. Declarer's LHO plays. Declarer's RHO cannot now say "oh, wait, I wanted to play the ten".

So it is possible for a defender to be in this situation.

Once declarer has played from his hand, his play from dummy must stand, unintended designation or not.

[bluejak]

peachy, on Dec 18 2009, 09:35 PM, said:

There was discussion about a TD ruling where declarer was allowed to change the card he designated from dummy, after both his RHO, he himself, and his LHO had played a card to the trick.  Some said this ruling was correct.  I can't get myself to agree... What do you all think?


Here is a quote of the Law that I thought applied. 

Law 45
- - -
4. (a) A card must be played if a player names or
otherwise designates it as the card he proposes
to play.
( b ) U ntil his partner has played a card, a player
may change an unintended designation if he
does so without pause for thought. If an opponent
has, in turn, played a card that was
legal before the change in designation, that
opponent may withdraw the card so played,
return it to his hand, and substitute another
(see Laws 47D and 16D1).

It depends which forum. If you are referring to the ruling given by a top Australian and World TD referred to in rec.games.bridge, then you have quoted the wrong Law book: that ruling was given under the 1997 Laws which were different.

[peachy]

bluejak, on Dec 18 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

peachy, on Dec 18 2009, 09:35 PM, said:

There was discussion about a TD ruling where declarer was allowed to change the card he designated from dummy, after both his RHO, he himself, and his LHO had played a card to the trick.  Some said this ruling was correct.  I can't get myself to agree... What do you all think?


Here is a quote of the Law that I thought applied. 

Law 45
- - -
4. (a) A card must be played if a player names or
otherwise designates it as the card he proposes
to play.
( b ) U ntil his partner has played a card, a player
may change an unintended designation if he
does so without pause for thought. If an opponent
has, in turn, played a card that was
legal before the change in designation, that
opponent may withdraw the card so played,
return it to his hand, and substitute another
(see Laws 47D and 16D1).

It depends which forum. If you are referring to the ruling given by a top Australian and World TD referred to in rec.games.bridge, then you have quoted the wrong Law book: that ruling was given under the 1997 Laws which were different.

I must have missed the date of the case completely. It makes sense now! And yes, it was the thread you suggested, on rgb.

[bluejak]

Not your fault: the original post that said it said something unhelpful like "in the last couple of years" but a later post stated it was under a previous Law book.