Mechanic mistake

[UdcaDenny]

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.

[Vampyr]

Errors in play are not mechanical errors. Played cards are played cards, period.

[gordontd]

Tournamentdirector changed the result to contract made as he said it was a mechanical mistake.

Perhaps you could have asked him to read out the appropriate part of the law book?

[UdcaDenny]

Perhaps you could have asked him to read out the appropriate part of the law book?

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A played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification after a change of designation permitted by Law 45.C.4(b).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.

[gordontd]

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A played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification after a change of designation permitted by Law 45.C.4(b).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.

None of this applies: he didn't designate a card, he played one.

[SteelWheel]

Take a look sometime at this:

 

http://www.bridgehands.com/Tournaments/ACBL_NABC/Vancouver0399_8.pdf

 

The reader's attention is directed to page 4(?)--the infamous "Oh s---" incident and subsequent committee ruling. The majority decision of the committee was wrong then, and this decision is remarkably similar. The Laws are meant to protect players from true mechanical mistakes--not from "forgetting".

 

You wuz robbed.

[Zelandakh]

The relevant laws are 48A:

Declarer is not subject to restriction for exposing a card (but see Law 45C2), and no card of declarer’s or dummy’s hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally.

 

...and 45C2:

Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is

a. held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or

b. maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played.

 

There is a very similar thread in the Laws section and I would suggest that is more appropriate than the I/A forum.

[Trump Echo]

I tend to agree with Denny above, assuming the Director is competent.

 

Apparently a mechanical mistake is one where player wanted to (for example) play a low Diamond but instead led an adjacent Club from his hand.

 

So the question is whether that is the case.

 

It sounds like he meant to lead the Diamonds. After the hand was over, the Director must have determined that was the case. Diamonds were meant to be led. The club lead was a mistake, similar to a mis-click online. Hence, Director awarded the hand to Declarer.

 

It makes sense to me assuming the Director judged correctly.

[gordontd]

 

Apparently a mechanical mistake is one where player wanted to (for example) play a low Diamond but instead led an adjacent Club from his hand.

 

So the question is whether that is the case.

 

No, that's not the question, since "mechanical mistake" doesn't appear in the Laws.

 

One question is "did he designate a card?" Since the answer to that is "No", all the quoted material from 47C & 45B4 becomes irrelevant.

[zillahandp]

Can i be clear are there any laws which mean an undo is compulsory, or can imps chasers always refuse?

[Vampyr]

I tend to agree with Denny above, assuming the Director is competent.

 

Apparently a mechanical mistake is one where player wanted to (for example) play a low Diamond but instead led an adjacent Club from his hand.

 

So the question is whether that is the case.

 

It sounds like he meant to lead the Diamonds. After the hand was over, the Director must have determined that was the case. Diamonds were meant to be led. The club lead was a mistake, similar to a mis-click online. Hence, Director awarded the hand to Declarer.

 

It makes sense to me assuming the Director judged correctly.

 

No. You really really cannot take back a played card (unless it is an illegal card). The relevant laws have been quoted.

[aguahombre]

Take a look sometime at this:

 

http://www.bridgehands.com/Tournaments/ACBL_NABC/Vancouver0399_8.pdf

 

The reader's attention is directed to page 4(?)--the infamous "Oh s---" incident and subsequent committee ruling. The majority decision of the committee was wrong then, and this decision is remarkably similar. The Laws are meant to protect players from true mechanical mistakes--not from "forgetting".

 

You wuz robbed.

The decision is not similar; the card was designated from dummy --- not played by declarer. OP was robbed in his case, but the committee ruling is not wrong in the Vandy case..given the facts the commitee determined there.

[UdcaDenny]

The decision is not similar; the card was designated from dummy --- not played by declarer. OP was robbed in his case, but the committee ruling is not wrong in the Vandy case..given the facts the commitee determined there.

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.

[aguahombre]

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.

That's what I said. You was robbed. Steelwheel's reference to the Vandy ruling has nothing to do with your case.

[helene_t]

Can i be clear are there any laws which mean an undo is compulsory, or can imps chasers always refuse?

The BBO software allows undo requests in play which is contrary to the laws anyway, except maybe if declarer misclicks a card in dummy and one could argue that that should be treated as inadvent designation.

 

On the other hand, the BBO software also allows the table host to disallow undo during the auction. This is also contrary to the laws as a player should be allowed to undo a call that was a mechanical error.

 

If opps ask for undo and you are not conviced that it was a mechanical error, you should call the director. Similarly, if opps reject your undo request and you insist it was a mechanical error, call the director.

[campboy]

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.

"Designating" a card simply means saying that is the card you want. This normally happens only when calling for a card from dummy. If declarer makes a slip of the tongue when calling for a card from dummy, he may correct it. If he physically plays the wrong card it cannot be corrected (unless it is also a revoke).

[UdcaDenny]

"Designating" a card simply means saying that is the card you want. This normally happens only when calling for a card from dummy. If declarer makes a slip of the tongue when calling for a card from dummy, he may correct it. If he physically plays the wrong card it cannot be corrected (unless it is also a revoke).

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.

[billw55]

I have a suggestion for next time you play a game under this director. While declaring, take a finesse. If it loses, call director and try to take it back and play for the drop instead. Just say, "I didn't mean to play that card".

[Vampyr]

So playing a card from your hand can never be changed then ?

 

Right.

[UdcaDenny]

None of this applies: he didn't designate a card, he played one.

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 ?

[gordontd]

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 ?

A card could in principle be designated by declarer, dummy or defenders, though in practice I've never known a situation where this law applied to anything but a card in dummy designated by declarer.

 

I think the words of the law itself make clear that designating is not the same as playing, or else (a) below would make no sense. I'm afraid it'll take more than an assertion from your friend in New York for me to believe that "designates" means "plays".

 

L45C4. (a) A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it

as the card he proposes to play.

(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 (see Laws 47D

and 16D1).

 

As to whether this law should be re-written, I've proposed exactly that to the WBF Laws Committee, but from the perspective that the phrase "Until his partner has played" is unclear and is interpreted in different ways in different jurisdictions.

[lamford]

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 suggest that you ask him which definition of "designate" does he think is identical to "play". "Designate" is not in the definitions of the Laws (it should be, it would seem) so it gets the contextual normal meaning which is "indicate or specify". Play, in this context, is defined as "contribute a card to a trick". They are clearly different.

[Trump Echo]

As pointed out above, "mechanical error" is not in the rules. The rule (from the language) has nothing to do with whether the error was mechanical (although it's implied). The test seems to be "pause for thought", regardless of whether the error was an inadvertent error or a logic error. And if that's true, the Director would have to have been there watching the play to judge properly.

[Trinidad]

As pointed out above, "mechanical error" is not in the rules. The rule (from the language) has nothing to do with whether the error was mechanical (although it's implied). The test seems to be "pause for thought", regardless of whether the error was an inadvertent error or a logic error. And if that's true, the Director would have to have been there watching the play to judge properly.

The test is not "pause for thought", at least not for playing a card. (There is a "pause for thought" criterion for changing a call that was made inadvertantly, but that is an entirely different matter.)

 

The test whether a card is played is specified in Law 45

A. Play of Card from a Hand

Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing* it on the table immediately before him.

 

C. Compulsory Play of Card

2. Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is

(a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or

(b) maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played.

 

That is the entire story. There is nothing more to it, no "pause for thought" or anything like it.

 

I, and I presume many others, interpret this so that cards that fell out of declarer's hand have not been played. But athetre can not be any misunderstanding that a card that was detached from the hand deliberately and held in the played position has been played and can not be changed (unless it was a revoke).

 

Rik

[Zelandakh]

I, and I presume many others, interpret this so that cards that fell out of declarer's hand have not been played.

That is covered by 48A as per my previous post.