[blml] Has declarer lead from dummy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

John (MadDog) Probst:

>This one got me to phone DWS. What do you think?
>
>Declarer is cashing a long suit from hand, pitching small side suit cards
>from dummy and he holds all the remaining cards of the suit. He is
>playing quickly. His brain beats his hand and he says "heart deuce" (a
>card in dummy) before he plays the next winner from his hand. RHO snaps a
>heart onto the table. Declarer says "Hang on I haven't played yet.". From
>this it is clear that declarer knows he's in hand and knows he's about to
>lead to this trick from hand.  These are the *facts* - don't argue with
>them.
>
>Has declarer led OOT from dummy or has the trick not yet started, and
>therefore the lead is still in his hand and we can pick up the 2 cards
>currently in the played position with all the usual UI/AI constraints?

Richard Hills:

Wrong questions.  The trick has started, but declarer has inadvertently
designated.

Law 45C4(b):

>>A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he
>>does so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has, in turn,
>>played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that
>>opponent may withdraw without penalty the card so played and substitute
>>another (see Law 47E)."

Richard Hills:

So both dummy's heart deuce and RHO's heart currently played to this
trick are withdrawn.  As now zero outstanding cards have been played to
this trick, the person who won the previous trick - declarer - leads a
card from his own hand to this trick (Law 44G).

What's the problem?


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285