UdcaDenny

So the law could be applied to a card from any hand but I thought designated means a named card intended to be played and that it differs from a played card already put on the table. Our TD called the played Ace of S a designated card and allowed my partner to pick it up and replace it with his 10.

45.C.4.b is about a call from dummy. You can read more about it at: http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/rulings/Changing-a-Called-Card-from-Dummy.pdf Regards, Dan Im greatful to Dan Plato at ACBL who helped me to understand this Law better and also gave me above link with 10 examples. Its a pity ist not written in Law 45.C.4.b that it only applies to intended cards from dummy and not from played cards from opponents. That would have saved me from a lot of troubles and a friend also said I could get expelled from the club if I dont drop the subject as our TD will never change his opinion about this Law. End of the story, now you can continue talking about psychic bids :P

To clarify more here are the parts of the Law that TD quote to justify his action. First he calls the play an Inadvertent Designation (Law 47C) and that refers to Law 45C4(b) Compulsory Play of Card. He means that a designated card is the same as a played card. So his ruling stems from mixing those words. Law 47. Retraction of card played 47C. To Change an Inadvertent Designation A played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification after a change of designation permitted by Law 45.C.4(b). Law 45. Card Played C. Compulsory Play of Card 4(b) Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. If an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his hand, and substitute another. Comment: John's misplay was the result of a "mechanical error," (as in "What the hell is this card doing on the table") not an error in thought or judgement. Therefore, Law 47 would appear to apply here. Here is what Laurie Kelso, Chief Tournamen Director for WBF kindly answers me in a mail: Hello Denny I gather from what you have written that Declarer mis-pulled a card from their own hand. If so, then this qualifies as a 'played card'. Unfortunately (at least for declarer) there is no law that permits a card played from Declarer's hand to be withdrawn (unless there has been a prior infraction by an opponent). I would guess that the director has misunderstood the meaning of Law 45C4(b). This law does allow for the change of an 'unintended designation', however the card in question was not designated - instead it was physically removed from hand and placed upon the table (i.e. played). The word 'designation' usually refers to the naming of a card or very occasionally a player might point to a card, wishing it to be played. As such Law 45C4(b) applies almost exclusively to misspoken specifications of cards faced upon the table in Dummy. Cards accidently played from any of the other three (non-dummy) hands cannot be withdrawn. Regards Laurie

Im really thankful for all feedback and support which I hoped shud make the TD in my club change his thinking but he only got angry and answering: "It is worthless discussing these matters with you since you don't listen or read what is written. Please do NOT send me any more messages about this---I am tired of wasting time." Unfortunatly some people can never admit they are wrong and the Committee of the club feel the authoroty so I guess I have to live with it.

I have mailed Ton Kooyman, Maurizio di Sacco and Laurie Kelso all Chief Tournament Directors for WBF and they all say a played card cannot be changed. The answer from my club is that we follow the rules from ACBL and not WBF. Can it really be true that they interpret the law different ?

I just got a message from the Committee of my club where they aggreed with TD that you can take back a played card even if LHO already have discarded. Must say Im dissappointed as I had hoped they would state that a played card is always a played card if its put on the table without being dropped. So now I have mailed a few persons in WBL to have this problem solved.

I dont understand the meaning of "inadvertent designation" even when I read the swedish translation of the bridgelaws. Why use so complicated words that can cause confusion ? Can you please give an example how a declarer can make an inadvertent designation playing a card from his own hand ? Does he make a comment when he puts the card on the table ? Sorry if Im fussy but I really want to know.

TD refer to law 45C4(b) which says he can change a wrongly played card without pause of thinking. I dont really understand that he can also change it if LHO have played a card. Opponent must have played very fast then if declarer didnt pause for thinking. For me it seems a bit foggy. C. Compulsory Play of Card 1. Defender's Card A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E). 2. Declarer's Card Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. 3. Dummy's Card A card in the dummy must be played if it has been deliberately touched by declarer except for the purpose of arranging dummy's cards, or of reaching a card above or below the card or cards touched. 4. Named or Designated Card (a) Play of Named Card A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposed to play. (b) Correction of Inadvertent Designation A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw without penalty the card so played and substitute another (see Law 47E).

I dont take it personally because I gained a trick when TD let my partner change a played card. Its a question of principles as TD said he would continue letting players change obviously faulty played cards calling them mechanic mistakes. As I live here in Chiangmai 8 months a year and play in this club 3-4 times a week I offcource want a correct game.

A friend from New York says a designated card is the same as a played card and can be from declarer, dummy or opponents. He also say that you dont know english if you make a difference between designated and played. Anyway how can you interpret a law so different. Maybe it shus be rewritten ?

I just made this new thread to get a feedback from players who know about rules better than me. Please also tell if you are experienced tournamentdirectors as TD in my club says he knows better than "amateurs" in bridgeforums on the web. Will make a printout and show him the answers I get. Can you also give me an adress where I can appeal what I think is wrong ruling please.

I had a similar topic up a few days ago. Same evening this also happened with same director ruling. In the end of a game I played a low card from KJx and declarer followed low. On dummy was 9xx but my partner played the Ace having the 10 also. After putting the Ace on the table he said whoops, picked it up and played the 10 instead. Now the declarer didnt get a trick for his Q but TD said it was a mechanical error and allowed the change. This cannot be right but TD is very persistant so I need support from players who might know better.

So playing a card from your hand can never be changed then ? TD in my bridgeclub in Chiangmai means if its an obvious bad play declarer has the right to say "I picked the wrong card by mistake" but I never heard of such a thing in my whole bridgelife.

I dont really understand the word "designated" but the card was played from his hand. He played my partners suit by mistake and found out after I had discarded a ♥. He then called TD and said I didnt mean to play a ♣ and TD changed the result to 3NT just made. I have played bridge 45 years and never seen something similar before. In my world a played card is a played card and cannot be changed.

Law 47. Retraction of card played C. To Change an Inadvertent Designation A played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification after a change of designation permitted by Law 45.C.4(b). Law 45. Card Played C. Compulsory Play of Card 4(b) Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. If an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his hand, and substitute another. Comment: John's misplay was the result of a "mechanical error," (as in "What the hell is this card doing on the table") not an error in thought or judgement. Therefore, Law 47 would appear to apply here. The mistake made on the part of all of us was not to recognize the situation immediately and take the appropriate action at the time.

He didnt drop it. He was just unkoncentrated and he saw the mistake after I already had discarded a card.

A TD in my club changed the result 3NT down one to 3NT made. In the end of the game declarer played a ♣ to my partner who had 3 good cards. After I discarded a ♥ and before he played a card from dummy he realised his mistake. TD interpreted the law that it was a "mechanical" mistake pulling the wrong card and changed the result. Can that be possible ?

Playing a teamgame the declarer made a crazy mistake. My partner had doubled a staymanbid so I led ♣ against 3NT. In the end of the game the declarer put my parner in with a ♣. I had already discarded a ♥ when he discovered what he had done and said "Oh no, what did I do". He shud make the contract but went one down. Tournamentdirector changed the result to contract made as he said it was a mechanical mistake. Now I wonder if that was correct since I already had discarded.

Forgot to say we use puppetstayman if that make any difference

Playing 2 over 1 I open 1NT with 16p and a 5card ♠suit. My P transfer to ♥ and then bid 2♠. As there is a good fit I jump to 4♠ which he passed and we missed slam. He said 3♠ would have been a stronger bid but I thought that would be inviting game as he could have only 8points. What is the standard bidding in this case as we hadnt agreed how to bid.

Me and P play 2 over 1 and P opened 1♥. I bid 2♦ and P bid splinter 3♠. As Im minimum for my bid I suggested 3NT with good hold in ♠ and a stopper in ♣. Over my 3NT P bid 4♥ which I passed as we played matchpoints and I assumed he had 6 cards. My question is if I shud have bid 4♣ over 3♠ as my P said but I thought he could have rebid ♠ to show firsthandcontrol or he could have bid 4♦. [hv=pc=n&s=shakqj93dak53c982&n=saq2h42dqt872ca54&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1hp2dp3sp3np4hppp]266|200[/hv]

When I started playing bridge 45 years ago I played something similar called "Polish Scissors". It was opening 2NT with similar distribution but that took away opening strong balanced hands. Also it forced to the 3 level, with 2D you can stop with 2H or 2S when partner is too weak to force. Anyway Im very interested to have opinions from good players and also suggestions to improve the convention.

Instead of using 2D as a weak 6 card suit I have a funny alternative. Since Im a great fan of Pink Floyd I call it Crazy Diamond. Its minimum 5-5 in any suits with 6-10 HCP. 2H-2S weak respons-Opener passes or bids lowest suit. 3C-3D-3H-3S own long suit for play 2NT forcing After 2NT: 3C minimum with one higher suit 3D minimum with a major 3H minimum with both majors 3S maximum with a minor 3NT maximum with both minors 4C maximum with H 4D maximum with H 4H maximum with both majors

First of all thanks for all replies. To clarify we play in a bridgeclub in Chiangmai, Thailand and we play 2/1 by Max Hardy. My partner is a New Yorker and Im from Sweden. In Sweden most players use a jumping cuebid to show a long solid minor and I never heard of anyone having same suit as opener. On the other hand my american partner never heard of stopperasking. Maybe I shud make a takeoutdouble with my strong hand AKx Jx AKQJ10xx x but since my p was a passed hand I thought 3NT was a more likely contract than 6D. Regarding my bad H holding I just took a chance my p had at least Qxx to make a stopper if that suit was the lead. My p had Q109xxx K985 x J9 and didnt bid 3S which I would have raised to 4 so I played 3C 5 down.

Today I played 3C with J9 in dummy and singleton on my hand. Opponents opened one C, better minor and I bid 3C meant as asking for a stopper. I had a solid 7 card diamond. My partner passed with J9 in C and said that in standard american and 2/1 I showed a real suit. I never heard of that and why shud I jump in C if they open my suit. I would pass and see what happens. Would like to hear other good players opinion about the meaning of the bid.