Any correction rights for declarer or dummy on an obvious mis-call?

[Heron]

Say you're near the end of a straightforward 4S contract. The board holds one small spade and a string of top clubs. Lead is from the dummy.

 

Then, declarer calls for a "high spade". As declarer, I believe there's an uncontroversial right to say "er I meant club" if there's no pause, but what if declarer doesn't realize the use of the wrong word until dummy is reaching for it?

 

As dummy:

• must one play the "high" spade with no comment, despite being a singleton 4?
  
• may one ask "there's only one, please confirm you mean the spade 4?"
  
• something else? (...kick partner? kick opponent for cover and play the club ace?)
  

The obvious and expected (by everyone at the table) line of play was to run the top clubs, ruff a club in declarer's hand, and ruff a heart back in the dummy. This was also the plan of the declarer, but declarer looked at the top black card and just used the wrong word for it.

 

On the one hand, law 46.B.1 is fairly unequivocal with "If declarer, in playing from dummy, calls ``high'', or words of like import, he is deemed to have called the highest card". On the other hand, 45.4.b provides some slack if a correction to a call is made "without pause for thought", but I don't really know how to interpret that here if declarer doesn't realize the mis-call until it's seen. On the gripping hand, declarer is already kind of in the wrong here against 46.A's "declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card", but is there anyone in the world who actually does do this aside from pedantic me?

 

For what it's worth, I believe in the game in question declarer could have asked to correct and opponents would have been OK with it, but declarer took the conservative path (and a bottom).

 

Thanks for any opinions and enlightenment!

[Fluffy]

• must one play the "high" spade with no comment, despite being a singleton 4?

Absolutelly

• may one ask "there's only one, please confirm you mean the spade 4?"

No way

• something else? (...kick partner? kick opponent for cover and play the club ace?)

No way

 

 

Wrong forum BTW. There is a laws & rulings lower in the forum list.

[Phil]

Wrong forum of course, but I'm not going to get excited about anything in the NB.

 

Agree with Fluffy on the answers.

[MatthiasK]

I think the most useful lesson for NB to learn regarding bridge rules is:

 

Do not try to make your own rulings. There is a (hopefully experienced) TD for this job!

 

In this case, if you really wanted to play a club, tell the opponents. At this point, there might have been an infraction. Anybody at the table may aall the TD. Calling the director does not mean that somebody may have cheated. It just means you want him to check if everything went according to the rules.

 

If the opponents start to explain the rules to you and want to make a ruling, ask politely for a ruling by the TD. Again:

Do not make your own rulings. Not accepting a ruling offered by the opponents does not mean you think they are lying to you. It's just not their job. Better let the TD sort it out.

[campboy]

I agree that dummy shouldn't be saying anything.

 

It seems clear that the designation was unintended. "Without pause for thought" in 45C4b does not mean "without pause"; once he realised what he had said declarer presumably did not pause to think about it and that is what matters.

 

It is perhaps less clear what "until his partner has played a card" means when declarer is designating a card from dummy.

[blackshoe]

On the gripping hand, declarer is already kind of in the wrong here against 46.A's "declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card", but is there anyone in the world who actually does do this aside from pedantic me?

Yes. Pedantic me — and those of my partners who don't ignore what I tell them. B-)

[Bbradley62]

On the gripping hand, declarer is already kind of in the wrong here against 46.A's "declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card", but is there anyone in the world who actually does do this aside from pedantic me?

Yes. Pedantic me — and those of my partners who don't ignore what I tell them. B-)

A recurring discussion in these fora:

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/49653-play/

[Zelandakh]

Declarer can change an unintended designation providing they have not played a card thereafter and they do so without pause for thought. The time for the pause begins as soon as declarer realises the unintended designation. It is very rare for this not to be immediate and you may well have a hard time persuading a TD that Dummy's actions did not wake you up. If Dummy takes any action other than immediately playing the card designated then they have committed an infraction and Declarer will not be allowed to gain from it.

[S2000magic]

Yes. Pedantic me — and those of my partners who don't ignore what I tell them. B-)

I, too. (Well, I don't specify the suit when dummy is following fuit, but name the card in full otherwise.)

[richlp]

Declarer can change an unintended designation providing they have not played a card thereafter and they do so without pause for thought. The time for the pause begins as soon as declarer realises the unintended designation. It is very rare for this not to be immediate and you may well have a hard time persuading a TD that Dummy's actions did not wake you up. If Dummy takes any action other than immediately playing the card designated then they have committed an infraction and Declarer will not be allowed to gain from it.

 

Why isn't dummy allowed to wake you up? This isn't a UI or MI situation.

 

My head says "High Club" but my mouth says "High Spade." Dummy starts to play the Spade and I immediately say "Didn't I call for a Club?" No pause for thought. As soon as I see the card move I make my comment. Dummy's action certainly woke me up but wouldn't my change be legal (assuming I can convince the TD that as soon as dummy started to play I realized what I must have said)?

[Zelandakh]

Why isn't dummy allowed to wake you up? This isn't a UI or MI situation.

Because most of the time when this happens it is the manner in which Dummy plays the card that wakes you up. A slight hesitation, a questioning look, whatever. You have to be able to convince the TD that Dummy played normally and only the (normal but unexpected) movement towards the incorrectly designated card caused you to register that you miss-spoke and that you had not registered that designation with your own ears. There are a small number of cases where this might apply, for example when the cards are being designated in a foreign language and a player mixes up the designation without this registering immediately. Good luck on convincing most TDs on that though.

[Heron]

Thanks for the perspective, all!

 

I originally posted in the Beginner forum because, well, it seemed like a really basic question on interpretation of the Laws. Perhaps not all that basic after all, or at least not all that straightforward, though it is at least clear that as dummy the most positive thing I can possibly do is to play the called card in tempo and hope. (That plus trying not to find one's self in this situation, that is!)

[barmar]

The general philosophy is that dummy is an agent of declarer -- he's basically just saving declarer the effort of reaching across the table to pick up the card. With a few specific exceptions, anything he does beyond this mechanical process is considered inappropriate "participating in the play".

[bluejak]

Why isn't dummy allowed to wake you up? This isn't a UI or MI situation.

 

My head says "High Club" but my mouth says "High Spade." Dummy starts to play the Spade and I immediately say "Didn't I call for a Club?" No pause for thought. As soon as I see the card move I make my comment. Dummy's action certainly woke me up but wouldn't my change be legal (assuming I can convince the TD that as soon as dummy started to play I realized what I must have said)?

It has been accepted by the WBFLC and added to the Law book that an inadvertent designation of a call may be corrected if done without pause for thought from the realisation of the mistake however the mistake is realised, and even if the realisation of the mistake is because of something partner has said or done.

 

So I am not sure why this position shoud be any different.

 

Because most of the time when this happens it is the manner in which Dummy plays the card that wakes you up. A slight hesitation, a questioning look, whatever. You have to be able to convince the TD that Dummy played normally and only the (normal but unexpected) movement towards the incorrectly designated card caused you to register that you miss-spoke and that you had not registered that designation with your own ears. There are a small number of cases where this might apply, for example when the cards are being designated in a foreign language and a player mixes up the designation without this registering immediately. Good luck on convincing most TDs on that though.

Same answer - what difference does it make what wakes you up to the mistake?

 

:ph34r:

 

I wonder about another possible answer to this scenario. Law 46B1A says

 

LAW 46: INCOMPLETE OR ERRONEOUS CALL OF A CARD FROM DUMMY

 

B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call

 

In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):

 

1. (a) If declarer in playing from dummy calls ‘high’, or words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the highest card.

Wasn't his different intention incontrovertible?

 

Incidentally, may I repeat what someone else has said: why on earth did declarer/dummy see fit to make their own ruling? Why not call the TD?

[barmar]

It has been accepted by the WBFLC and added to the Law book that an inadvertent designation of a call may be corrected if done without pause for thought from the realisation of the mistake however the mistake is realised, and even if the realisation of the mistake is because of something partner has said or done.

 

So I am not sure why this position shoud be any different.

 

 

Same answer - what difference does it make what wakes you up to the mistake?

At some point we fall afoul of the law prohibiting dummy from participating in the play. Would you really allow it if dummy said "Did you really mean a spade, not a club"? How about "I assume that was a slip of the tongue, and you meant 'high spade'"?

[bluejak]

Declarer should stay awake, dummy should not. If declarer asks for a high spade, dummy should just play the spade and leave it to declarer to say that is not what he meant and call the TD.

[campboy]

At some point we fall afoul of the law prohibiting dummy from participating in the play. Would you really allow it if dummy said "Did you really mean a spade, not a club"? How about "I assume that was a slip of the tongue, and you meant 'high spade'"?

This would clearly be a violation of law 73B1, and a PP would be in order IMO.

 

Whether or not there has been illegal communication, declarer may change an inadvertent designation. However, if the director judges that an advantage has been gained from the illegal communication he may adjust the score (law 23).

[Fujiko]

Incidentally, may I repeat what someone else has said: why on earth did declarer/dummy see fit to make their own ruling? Why not call the TD?

 

(As declarer.)

 

Because I didn't realize I had miscalled until dummy was playing the card and RHO was following to the trick. I did not make my own ruling -- I didn't think fast enough to stop play.

 

If I had figured out what was wrong in the split-second I was allowed, I would have stopped what was going on. I didn't. (Also, as this is a more-frequent-than-desired error, I'm trying to pick up the habit of calling for rank and suit, which will ideally protect me most of the time...)

[blackshoe]

I think that when you realize you miscalled, as long as you have not subsequently played from your own hand, you can change your designation (Law 45C4{b}). If RHO has played, he can withdraw it (same law).

 

Today, this happened to me: I was declarer, there were a bunch of spades on the dummy, and the 8, 6, and 3 of hearts. I called for the nine of spades, but what came out of my mouth was "nine of hearts". Dummy, the dummy, picked up the eight of hearts, and RHO played a heart. I said "hang on, I meant 9 of *spades*". RHO, a club director herself, said "I'll let you change it, as long as you let me change my card". So that's what we did. Technically, we should have called the TD, of course. :ph34r:

[bluejak]

Incidentally, may I repeat what someone else has said: why on earth did declarer/dummy see fit to make their own ruling? Why not call the TD?

 

Because I didn't realize I had miscalled until dummy was playing the card and RHO was following to the trick. I did not make my own ruling -- I didn't think fast enough to stop play.

Why not call the TD then?

[Fujiko]

Why not call the TD then?

 

Apparently I should have. My previous experience (I do this with alarming frequency :( ) had been that so long as your opponent followed to the trick, it was established.

 

It's quite possible that's wrong, which would be very good to know. (Although 'quit doing that' should be the ultimate solution to this one...)

[schulken]

I think that when you realize you miscalled, as long as you have not subsequently played from your own hand, you can change your designation (Law 45C4{b}). If RHO has played, he can withdraw it (same law).

 

Today, this happened to me: I was declarer, there were a bunch of spades on the dummy, and the 8, 6, and 3 of hearts. I called for the nine of spades, but what came out of my mouth was "nine of hearts". Dummy, the dummy, picked up the eight of hearts, and RHO played a heart. I said "hang on, I meant 9 of *spades*". RHO, a club director herself, said "I'll let you change it, as long as you let me change my card". So that's what we did. Technically, we should have called the TD, of course. :ph34r:

 

Clearly, the facts and circumstances here are different than in the OP. Part of dummy's limited responsibilities are to keep declarer from committing an infraction. L46B.4. voids such a call. This points out the value - be it pedantic or not - of calling for the card by suit and rank, although all of us have made this same mistake.