[blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy?

[David Barton]

My take on this:-

L46A when playing from dummy declarer should clearly
state both the suit and rank of the desired card.

This means ANY variation from this is a deviation from
correct procedure and hence an irregularity (see definitions).
(Ruff, high, deuce, a diamond etc are ALL irregularities)

If attention is called to this irregularity the director must rule
in accordance with L46B1 to L46B5 which card has been designated.

However, and this I believe is the crux of the issue, such determination
is subject to the condition "except when declarer's different intention
is incontrovertible".

My belief is that declarer's intention should be determined by asking
"What card would have been nominated if declarer had used the
correct (L46A) procedure instead of his deficient nomination"
in circumstances identical to the original nomination.
It is of course still for the TD to judge whether this determination is
"incontrovertible".

It is clear to me that in Herman's No Trump case, Declarer would have
nominated "3 of diamonds", and in Sven's 4H/4S case Declarer would
have nominated "3 of hearts".

In both cases I would judge the intention to be "incontrovertible".
Yes, Declarer would have nominated differently if he had been aware
of the actual contract but this I believe is not relevant.

*****************************************
  david.j.barton at lineone.net
*****************************************



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.0/961 - Release Date: 19/08/2007 07:27