Regretting a played card

[UdcaDenny]

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 ?

[pran]

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 ?

Assuming no kind of handicap involved: If declarer dropped the ♣ on the table I would say "YES", if he played it I would say "NO".

[UdcaDenny]

Assuming no kind of handicap involved: If declarer dropped the ♣ on the table I would say "YES", if he played it I would say "NO".

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

[pran]

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

The facts that you had already discarded and that he had not yet played to that trick from dummy are both irrelevant.

 

The only important question (aside from possible handicap issues) is whether he actually played the card from his hand or accidentally just dropped it with no intent to play it.

[Aardv]

There's no provision in the laws for declarer to correct an unintended play from his own hand.

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.

[pran]

There's no provision in the laws for declarer to correct an unintended play from his own hand.

Don't overlook or forget

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.

(My Enhancement)

[blackshoe]

He's not.

[weejonnie]

If he wasn't concentrating that isn't an excuse to be allowed to change cards - it looks like he played it and intended to play it, even if it was an error.

 

Of course of he had then said 'Oh S**t' then the Director is perfectly correct to allow him to change it. (TIC).

[pran]

If he wasn't concentrating that isn't an excuse to be allowed to change cards - it looks like he played it and intended to play it, even if it was an error.

 

Of course of he had then said 'Oh S**t' then the Director is perfectly correct to allow him to change it. (TIC).

No, I don't think so.

The essential distinction is still whether he played it or dropped it.

 

Intention is only relevant when he exposes (rather than plays) a card. Then the important question is whether he exposed the card with an apparent intent of playing it or for some different reason.

[barmar]

No, I don't think so.

The essential distinction is still whether he played it or dropped it.

I think weejonnie is making a reference to an infamously bad ruling in a 1999 Vanderbilt KO match.

 

http://www.bridgeace.com/Deal_of_the_Day/2011-04-13%20Oh,%20Shit!.pdf

[Vampyr]

I think weejonnie is making a reference to an infamously bad ruling in a 1999 Vanderbilt KO match.

 

http://www.bridgeace.com/Deal_of_the_Day/2011-04-13%20Oh,%20Shit!.pdf

 

Of course this bears no relation to the thread topic, since the linked case was about a card designated from dummy.

 

It is likely the declarer did not realise that she had called for a spade until the ♠K appeared. an interesting question is what would have happened had she called the director then and there.