[blackshoe]

You may be right, Barry, that the except applies. Is the different intention incontrovertible?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-March-19, 16:20, said:

You may be right, Barry, that the except applies. Is the different intention incontrovertible?

If no one noticed the incorrect dummy layout until he was moving the card into position, I think his actual intent should be quite clear. And you can add to this whether playing the ♥10 at that point makes any bridge sense.

[pigpenz]

I always thought all players were responsible for dummy.
so how can dummy revoke?

I guess it was an old 1948 law
http://www.acbl.org/...-card-in-dummy/

[pran]

pigpenz, on 2017-March-20, 09:32, said:

I always thought all players were responsible for dummy.
so how can dummy revoke?

I guess it was an old 1948 law
http://www.acbl.org/...-card-in-dummy/

ACBL may have had it's own Laws issued in 1948, but the internationoal Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge agreed upon and promulgated (at the time) by:
The Portland Club, The European Bridge League and The National Laws Commission of America were dated 1949.

I found no rule here with an effect that "all players are responsible for dummy", the closest I found is in Law 76 ("Procedure when a revoke is established") :

[There is no penalty for an established revoke: ..... ]
(d) If it is made in failing to play any card faced on the table, including a card from dummy's hand or a penalty card.

[WellSpyder]

pigpenz, on 2017-March-20, 09:32, said:

I always thought all players were responsible for dummy.
so how can dummy revoke?

Perhaps all the players at the table were irresponsible?

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2017-March-19, 10:43, said:

I agree with Sven on this one, provided the designatiion was specifically "ace of hearts" or "heart ace" in compliance with Law 46A. If his designation was something like "top heart" then he's called, albeit unknowingly, for the ten of hearts — and that call will stand, establishing the revoke. But there is no ace of hearts in dummy, so the call is void — it didn't happen. Since it didn't happen, the revoke is not established.

I posed the question on the EBL TDs forum where arguments in both directions were presented. However, the secretary of the WBFLC has just pointed out that in the new laws the word "void" has been removed and "invalid" is used instead. I imagine that will clarify things quite a bit.

[blackshoe]

Hm. I suppose it does, though I'm not sure I agree with the direction they're taking.

[gordontd]

gordontd, on 2017-March-21, 05:48, said:

I posed the question on the EBL TDs forum where arguments in both directions were presented. However, the secretary of the WBFLC has just pointed out that in the new laws the word "void" has been removed and "invalid" is used instead. I imagine that will clarify things quite a bit.

In answer to my question he has now posted on the EBL forum:

Quote

I am hopeful that the use of the word 'invalid' might encourage Directors to believe that an incomplete designation is sufficient to establish a revoke.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2017-March-28, 02:53, said:

In answer to my question he has now posted on the EBL forum:

Quote

I am hopeful that the use of the word 'invalid' might encourage Directors to believe that an incomplete designation is sufficient to establish a revoke.

Obviously it should:
A void action is one that was (considered) never made while an invalid action was certainly made.

[axman]

pran, on 2017-March-28, 05:56, said:

Obviously it should:
A void action is one that was (considered) never made while an invalid action was certainly made.

void (noun) relates to emptiness
(verb) relates to canceling or vacate (the use you allude to)

As such, without adequate modification, your use does not include the effects of a time machine- and it would be dubious for contestants (as well as tournament officials) to so believe

[pran]

axman, on 2017-March-28, 11:48, said:

void (noun) relates to emptiness
(verb) relates to canceling or vacate (the use you allude to)

As such, without adequate modification, your use does not include the effects of a time machine- and it would be dubious for contestants (as well as tournament officials) to so believe

"Void" as used in 2007 Law 46 B 4 is an adjective! (Neither noun nor verb)

According to my Webster it means that the described action has no effect or result - "it does not exist"

[richlp]

FW(Little)IW..............

I'm not happy with RHO on this one.

As laudable as not wanting to give UI is ................ what kind of UI do you give when dummy comes down and you say "Isn't that the Ace of Diamonds?"

[barmar]

richlp, on 2017-March-29, 01:20, said:

As laudable as not wanting to give UI is ................ what kind of UI do you give when dummy comes down and you say "Isn't that the Ace of Diamonds?"

I guess his thinking is that his partner would realize that he noticed it because he could see the "duplicate" card in his hand.

Yeah, sounds like a lame excuse to me, too.