Law 45 C 4(b)

The Law states: Declarer may correct an unintended designation of a card from dummy until he next plays a card either from his own hand OR FROM DUMMY.

Declarer can only 'next play a card from dummy' if the trick with the unintended designation of card from dummy has already been played out.

Can this be right?

Comments

  • Yes, that's correct. It means that if you lose the trick you are still not too late to correct an unintended designation, as long as you haven't played to the next trick from either hand.

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    Yes, that's correct. It means that if you lose the trick you are still not too late to correct an unintended designation, as long as you haven't played to the next trick from either hand.

    I would imagine that the declarer would have a hell of a time justifying the unintended designation after losing the trick.

  • These things can take place quite fast, so I can imagine a scenario like that in which I believed the designation to have been inadvertent.

  • So, as he has played a card from his hand it is also too late to claim an incorrect designation from dummy...

  • @Martin said:
    So, as he has played a card from his hand it is also too late to claim an incorrect designation from dummy...

    Do you mean_ if_ he had subsequently played a card from his hand? That's not the situation under discussion.

    Declarer leads from hand, incorrectly designates a card from dummy, the trick is won by a defender who leads to the next trick. Not too late to rule under 45C4(b).

  • This issue of change of designation of card from dummy keeps cropping up, and players keep referring to 'in the same breath'.

    Today there was an incident where clubs are trumps, three tricks have been played, the lead is in dummy, declarer calls for the spade jack, dummy picks that card up and declarer says 'no, play a trump'. Defendants object but the declarer says he changed the call of the card 'in the same breath'.

    I would rule that under 45 C 4(b) this was 'reconsideration of action', however swift such reconsideration may have been, not an unintended designation, so change of designation is not allowed. Leave aside the fact that 'in the same breath' is not mentioned anywhere in the current Laws.

    Play of the spade jack would result in the contract going down one, play of the trump would allow the contract to make.

    Would I be right in my ruling?

  • @SDN said:

    Would I be right in my ruling?

    Yes :)

  • @gordonrainsford said:

    @SDN said:

    Would I be right in my ruling?

    Yes :)

    Thanks

Sign In or Register to comment.