[blml] Revoke established?

[Joost Boswijk]

André Steffens wrote

> We discussed a similar case on the dutch forum a few days ago. How about
> stating that Law 46 B applies here:
> Incomplete or Erroneous Call
> In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be
> played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when
> declarer's
> different intention is incontrovertible):
>
> Declarer's intention to play the singleton is incontrovertible, so Law 45D
> does not come into play
>
In that case the declarer had three spades left in a NT contract. He played
a high spade, after the LHO had played the dummy placed a low spade in the
played position and the RHO played. At that moment the declarer realised
that the spades didn't run, because the highest spade was still in the
dummy. Since he had not ordered the dummy to play in that trick, he wanted
to change the card from the dummy and called the TD.
In the discussion about this case the majority of the Dutch TD's didn't
allow the declarer to change the card 'played' by the dummy. IMO the laws do
give the declarer the right to change, since he didn't name that card, in
fact he didn't name any card at all. OTOH, the declarer could and should
have said 'high spade' or something of the sort and prevented the dummy from
'playing'. As TD I would have used L12A1.

Regards

Joost Boswijk