Law 46 - INCOMPLETE OR INVALID DESIGNATION OF A CARD FROM DUMMY
I've been looking at LAW 46 – INCOMPLETE OR INVALID DESIGNATION OF A CARD FROM DUMMY with a view to putting together a poster for our club members.
As I tried to "simplify" the language I realised there were some aspects I wasn't sure about.
46B1b states that "If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick, he is deemed to have called the lowest card that it is known will win the trick."
If dummy is the fourth person to play to the trick and has card in the suit led that will win the trick then the meaning is obvious.
If there are trumps, and dummy has no cards in the suit led, is "win" extended to mean ruffing the trick?
If dummy is not the fourth person to play to the trick, how is "known" interpreted, given that a defender is still to play to the trick? It clearly cannot take advantage of any knowledge Dummy has of cards already played. Does it mean highest card in the suit? If dummy has none, does it mean trump with the highest trump? Is it in fact an invalid designation (as opposed to an incomplete one)?
46B3a states that: "In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit with which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit."
If dummy won the previous trick by ruffing, are trumps the "suit with which dummy won the preceding trick"?
46B3b states that: "...but if there are two or more such cards that can be legally played declarer must designate which is intended".
I am assuming (because declarer has been made aware that there were two such cards in dummy) that once declarer has designated the rank, they must chose one of the two or more such cards, and cannot change the designation to another card. Is this correct?