jules101

I'm lost in the fog again. :D How does the TD decide whether to allow a change after declarer called for a SPECIFIC card?

Thanks everyone for their helpful comments. I think I understand now. Good job this was a "simple ruling" question. Have I got this right? If so I'll print out and staple to my rule book! A] If declarer calls for a SPECIFIC card (eg JS, low S, high S) then this card MUST be played (Law 45C4B). She MAY NOT change under Law 46B because when she called for a specific card she meant to play when she called for it. She MAY NOT change the card under Law 45C4B even if she had really intended to call for a different card. B] If declarer calls for the right card in the wrong way (eg spade, instead of highest S, AS etc) then the director MAY allow declarer to change her call if persuaded that she intended to play another card (eg top) (Law 46B, "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible"). The TD has to judge what was intended (and may allow or decline a change of card). Such a change may be permitted even if the next player has played. An immediate change under Law 45C4B would probably be allowed, if for instance declarer's failure to state "top spade" rather than "spade" was unintended. C] If declarer calls for a card and changes her mind, no change of card is allowed.

Last night our opp doubled my partner's 2N opener to show both majors. It was a shame her partner didn't know (2NX+1 B)). It got us thinking what we do if X is conventional, or if X is penalties. What action do you take if: [A] 2N (X) – where X is conventional (both majors, or maybe S and another, etc) - how do we compete? - how do we penalise them? 2N (X) – where X is penalties - how do we escape with a bust? [Just the same as our escape after weak 1N is doubled perhaps?] - how do we compete with values/shape? - how do we penalise them?

I omitted to say declarer was in 4♠ and the defence had scored 3 tricks at this point.

Case Study 1 Just to clarify - as requested. a] Declarer was in dummy and asked clearly for small/low club. There is no dubiety about which card was asked for and was played. Declarer realised his error almost instantly, but both dummy had played the card requested, and declarer's RHO had also played the K. b] Sorry I got declarer's RHO and LHO mixed up. Now corrected in original post. Low ♣ called for, and next hand (declarer's RHO) played K♣.

Law 46 - INCOMPLETE OF ERRONEOUS CALL OF A CARD FROM DUMMY B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call reads.... In the case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of a card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): etc etc In what circumstances are "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible"? Two case studies are given below. Is declarer's different intent incontrovertible in either or both of these situations? Case Study 1 Part way through playing hand declarer is in dummy, and calls for low ♣ when his holdings are: DUMMY ♣AJT ♣Q HAND Declarer's RHO plays the K. As the K is being played, declarer realises what he's done, and says he called for the wrong card and this was "mechanical error". He states his intention was to call for the Ace. We can all see it would indeed be a silly play (and the setting trick), it was what declarer would have planned. a] may declarer change the card called for? b] does it make any difference when the next hand (declarer's RHO) has played to the trick? c] may declarer ask his RHO to accept this is a "mechanical error"? d] if RHO is persuaded by declarer that dummy's card may be retracted may the other defender object? Case Study 2 Declarer has set up a long high spade card in dummy onto which she intends to throw a loser from hand. A lot of effort went into setting up the winner [lots of ruffing and crossing to dummy and ruffing, etc], and all can see declarer's intent. When in dummy for the last time, and with her winner established, declarer calls for "spade" (meaning to call for high spade, but as in case study 1 the declarer has had a momentary lapse). The low spade played will lose the trick, so no discard opportunity (this is the setting trick). As in case study 1 all at table can see this would be a silly play, and that on her last "visit" to dummy (and after all that effort) it had been declarer's intention to call for the higher card. May declarer: a] immediately change her call? b] does it make any difference if the next hand has played a card or not?

OK - if you chose to double then your pard bids 2♠. This shows 0-6ish (or is it 0-7?). Either way - it ain't v much. With more she'll show invitational values by going through Leb, or bidding 3M directly, etc etc. So what's your next move?

Opps! Fingers slipped. 13 cards now!

NS game W N E S [P] P [2♦] ? ♠AQ5 ♥K54 ♦K6 ♣AKQT4 2♦ = weak 2 in ♦ What's your call with West hand?

The Outcome The TD ruled that West had not intended to pass, and therefore he could remove his pass and replace it with another call. We indicated we were unhappy with the ruling. (I suppose this is very bad form to indicate dissent, but it didn't seem quite right to us.) TD asked us to wait while they went away and read some other documentation. TD returned with same ruling, but said we could appeal. Opps reached 3N which can't be stopped. They can also make 9 tricks in 2C. We spoke to the TD after the match. They said decision had been close, and in hindsight maybe they should perhaps have ruled for us, and suggested West appealed. The TD encouraged us to appeal. Partner and I discussed submitting an appeal, but with two more Swiss matches (the final two out of 12 overall) following immediately thereafter we felt it was impossible for us to put effort into an appeal as well as being able to focus on our final matches. We thought we might have gain 1 or 2 VPs by winning the appeal, but could well a lose (or not win) greater number of VPs by not being 100% focused on final matches. So we decided we had to let the appeal drop in order to focus 100% on the last 2 matches. We needed good wins and achieved these. (It is doubtful we'd have done so well in these final two matches if we were completing an appeal form at the same time as playing.) Had this "incident" taken place earlier in the overall event, or had there been a break period following, we would have pursued the appeal. Our fault for not appealing I hear you cry…. … but this felt more like a possible "win some, but lose even more opportunity" that we should refuse at this point in the event. There doesn't seem to be a solution. Or is there?

Deleted - not relevant given post above now edited! :(

The event was in England.

W dealer, Game all EW were playing 15-17 NT with 5-card puppet Stayman NB in England 2♣ Stayman bids are "announced" while 2♣ 5-card puppet Stayman bids are alerted W N E S 1N (P) 2♣* (P)** P*** * West alerted (no questions asked) and left alert card on table next to his 1N bid ** South waited a short moment for alert card to be removed. It wasn't removed so she passed in tempo. No question was asked about why the 2♣ bid was alerted rather than announced. *** West started looking over his left shoulder (not sure at what). Whilst looking away from the table he dipped his right hand into the bidding box picked up a pass card and placed it on the table. He then looked back to his table and went to pick up the alert card and realised he had passed. West now wishes to remove his pass and make a different bid. Clearly passing wouldn't have been his original intention, but this was carelessness while he wasn't concentrating, and definitely not a mechanical error. How do you rule?

NS are vulnerable Auction N E S W P [1S] ?? You are South holding Txxx KQ87 AJT87 --- What's your call and why?