Thanks bluejak for the insight.
As ne_trepide said, "i do believe the laws of bridge do leave me amazed at times."
So if the TD is to decide if the Ace was called for or not based on what people say how should he rule?;
1 person says he called for the Ace
1 person says he called for "small"
2 people didn't hear what he called for.
True you say that either declarer called for the Ace or he didn't ~ so what is the point of Law 46A?
Law 46: Incomplete or Erroneous call of card from dummy;
A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy's Card
When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.
So how is the TD supposed to deal with the UI and indeed how are the defenders and declarer supposed to deal with it if they are "not allowed to make rulings at table especially wrong rulins"
~ this implies that should the TD rule that the Ace was called that he should remain at table to "adjust". Yet how is the TD going to be able to fathom "what's what" and how are the defenders going to know exactly what UI declarer is in possession of until the hand is played out.
From my "neutral"
perspective, once the TD rules the ACE was called for then declarer is in possession of the following UI;
1. The KH is held by his RHO;
1.1 The Ace cannot catch the King.
1.2 The King cannot catch the Queen.
2. RHO holds another diamond;
2.1 The diamond lead was probably a singleton*
3. The RHO holds at least 1 other heart;
3.1 Therefore if a diamond ruff is taken there is no chance of RHO getting back in with a heart ruff.
All that info is known* to declarer ~ would it influence the contract? Well it certainly doesn't damage declarer knowing it.
*(this is probably helped by RHO's quick return of a diamond once the heart is lead with AH on table, I don't know for certain but I think it is a "reasonable" assumption).
However, if those are the rules then so be it ~ but should the TD remain to adjust for use of UI ~ remember the TD has no idea of "supplementary" UI held by declarer because he has not seen declarers hand?
I would say that declarer "at best" wasn't watching what the RHO was doing when he played the KH ~ so he "assumed" the Ace would hold and not be ruffed.
This is one part of "Bridge Laws" that I cannot fathom, the apportioning of blame in this case declarer has not observed;
There are other laws I could point to but no doubt it is down to my strict interpretation of them
How can the "game" hold legitimacy when 1 side clearly made an error "declarers" and yet they have the chance to put it right to the detriment of defenders.
If declarer calls for a card from dummy and doesn't watch (74B1) what is played and then misses the KH being played and still doesn't notice the Ace was not played (74B1) declarer should lose the right to appeal the played card ~ but the opposition should have a right to correct a card call from declarer that dummy doesn't follow.
Still, in my humble opinion, defenders should have asked declarer to "say again" what card he called for
Thanks again bluejak I appreciate your input. I hope you don't mind me putting forward a "players perspective" on the decisions made
But I would add, come "play time" I NEVER question a TD over a decision. This has cost me in the past with bad decisions being made against me ~ but my firm belief is a TD never gives a bad decision on purpose and I will not be the first to cast the proverbail stone (unless the opposition make a meal out of a situation
All the best,