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

[David Barton]

> It is much more of a genuine no-brainer around here to rule that  
> "ruff" demonstrates incontrovertable and manifest intent to trump the  
> current trick.  To the extent that a declarer with an absent dummy  
> who announced "I am ruffing that" and then reached over and took a  
> non-trump card from the dummy would be allowed to change the card for  
> a trump, on the grounds that his "different intention is  
> incontrovertable".
> 

It will come as no surprise to learn that I disagree.

If declarer thought he was playing in Hearts (rather than Spades)
and picked up a H then the H is played (despite his intention to ruff).

Similarly I would not allow the nomination of the Q to be changed
when Declarer notices the K has been played (despite his intention to
finesse) nor allow a change if Declarer says discard a small Spade
when Spades were trumps (despite his obvious intention to play a non
trump).

To me the question of intent can (usually) be decided by asking which
card would have been nominated had declarer used the correct procedure
and nominated the suit and rank. That would be Declarer's intention.

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.10/977 - Release Date: 28/08/2007 16:29