[blml] Richard agrees with Herman (was Law 45D) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Hirsch Davis]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Richard agrees with Herman (was Law 45D) 
[SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


>
> Example 1: Declarer thinks he is in 5Di, so he ruffs by playing a
> diamond from the table himself. When they point out to him that spades
> are trumps, he asks the director (anyone) if he is allowed to change
> his card to a spade, thus making the trick. Chorus: declarer is not
> allowed to change his inadvertent designation! Contract one off.
>
> Example 2: Declarer thinks he is in 5Di, so he ruffs by saying "ruff",
> and dummy plays a spade. When declarer points out that he intended to
> do this with a diamond, the opponents ask the TD if the spade or the
> diamond is played - two possibilities:
> Example 2A (TD Sven): spade is played, contract made, opponents
> unhappy. Comment by Hirsh: declarer is not allowed to change his
> inadvertent designation ! WHY THE H**L WOULD HE WANT TO?
> Example 2A (TD Herman): diamond is played, contract one off, declarer
> embarassed. Comment by ???: declarer is not allowed to change his
> inadvertent designation !
>
> --

Example 1:  Correct.  Declarer has legally designated a diamond and may not 
retract the play (usual considerations apply). Note that Declarer is not 
making an inadvertent designation here.  He has deliberately selected a 
diamond, even if based on an incorrect assumption.  Play stands.
Example 2A (TD Sven): Correct.  Declarer has legally designated a spade, 
whether he knew it or not.
Example 2A (TD Herman):  Incorrect.  Declarer has still legally designated a 
spade whether he knew it or not. Play stands.

In 2A, either version, one could argue that the spade play was inadvertent. 
In that case, if it was felt that the play met the conditions of 45C4(b), 
the Declarer would be allowed to change his spade designation to a diamond. 
However, my guess, which is encapsulated in the question Herman so elegantly 
asked, is that Declarer would not choose to change his play.

Remember, it's the player's *option* to change an inadvertent designation if 
allowed by the TD. The TD cannot force a player to change a legal 
designation of a card to be played, even if it was inadvertent.

The key phrase in law, quoted in full below is "A player may". Nothing in 
this section indicates that he must do so, or that the TD has any say in the 
matter beyond determining whether the original designation was advertent or 
not.

"(b)  Correction of Inadvertent Designation
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). "

Hirsch Davis
Rockville MD