Another change of played card

[UdcaDenny]

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.

[Vampyr]

As Gordon suggested in one of your other threads, ask the director to read out the relevant chapter in the Laws. And you might want to have a word with the management of the club. Perhaps they can set him straight or send him to the nearest club director course (it is pretty obvious he hasn't attended one in the past!)

 

A played card is a played card and that is all there is to it. The relevant laws have been quoted numerous times on these forums recently.

[UdcaDenny]

As Gordon suggested in one of your other threads, ask the director to read out the relevant chapter in the Laws. And you might want to have a word with the management of the club. Perhaps they can set him straight or send him to the nearest club director course (it is pretty obvious he hasn't attended one in the past!)

 

A played card is a played card and that is all there is to it. The relevant laws have been quoted numerous times on these forums recently.

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.

[blackshoe]

"Amateurs" is it? Humph. We have well qualified TDs from several countries here. We have members of the English Bridge Union's Laws and Ethics Committee. Your club TD doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

What Vampyr said.

 

Generally, you can appeal a ruling at your club (Law 92). Depending on the club, it may be heard by a committee of players, or it may be heard by the club TD or another TD who works for the club. Beyond that, you may be able to appeal to your national bridge organization.

 

You may just have to "vote with your feet" — just don't play at this club.

[gordontd]

TD in my club says he knows better than "amateurs" in bridgeforums on the web.

This suggests he believes he has some "professional" qualification or status. Have you asked him what it is?

[Trinidad]

This suggests he believes he has some "professional" qualification or status. Have you asked him what it is?

Or how much money he makes as a professional TD? ;)

 

Rik

[lamford]

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 tournament directors as TD in my club says he knows better than "amateurs" in bridge forums on the web. Will make a printout and show him the answers I get. Can you also give me an address where I can appeal what I think is wrong ruling please.

I think you can rely on the posters on this thread who are County TD or better in their country. As blackshoe says, the club should allow an appeal against a wrong ruling, and if the TD did not allow it, I would ask your club secretary to raise it in committee.

[Vampyr]

I think you can rely on the posters on this thread who are County TD or better in their country. As blackshoe says, the club should allow an appeal against a wrong ruling, and if the TD did not allow it, I would ask your club secretary to raise it in committee.

 

From England this would include me, Lamford, Robin, Mike Amos, Vix, Lanor Fow... sorry if I have left anyone off. Then of course there is Gordon, who is the Chief TD of the EBU.

 

EDIT: Ah, I see that i didn't have to make this list; Lamford has omitted a comma.

[billw55]

OK, so you have a director who, as personal policy, allows the retraction of played cards.

 

In this particular situation, even if the play of the ace was a mechanical error, it should still be a major penalty card per laws 49 and 50B.

 

This "director" is just wrong in so many ways.

[Vampyr]

In this particular situation, even if the play of the ace was a mechanical error,

 

Which it is not and cannot ever be -- do not forget to stress this!

[lamford]

EDIT: Ah, I see that i didn't have to make this list; Lamford has omitted a comma.

Indeed I omitted one intentionally when I wrote: "I think you can rely on the posters on this thread who are County TD or better in their country." At the time of writing that subset was all except, presumably, UdcaDenny. If I had included a comma after "thread", the meaning would have been different and unintended.

[trevahound]

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.

 

This isn't a complicated ruling, and this director is ignorant if he thinks the quality of director advice on these forums is poor. However -- I believe it's wise to not take a bad ruling at a club game personally, or be so worried about justice and being vindicated that you lose perspective. Most clubs do not have access to directors of the caliber on these forums. Most club directors (at least where I am in ACBL land) make very little. In our club, we make far less than minimum wage when you consider set up and tear down time, and it's as much volunteering as working. It's fine to explain why you think his ruling was wrong. IF the club supports appeals (and they are not required to, and many/most here don't), you're fine to ask for an appeal, but when you've pursued it that far, let it go. It's just a game, and if you got a poorer score than you deserved that evening, it doesn't make you a poorer bridge player in any way. As a club director I appreciate hearing why you think I've made a mistake in my ruling, but if you've shown him that, and he's not agreeing, and the club's fine with that, we're done with what we can/should do. There is no regulating authority that's going to overrule a club's ruling on a hand.

 

I've received many poor rulings (some particularly poor) over the past ten years or so. C'est la vie. I've appealed once, and that's only because the director in question was telling me I'd have to pre-alert all my opps that we responded ultra light to opening bids, just because partner responded with Axxx xxx xxx xxx once. I didn't care about the ruling on the hand, but that sort of pre-alerting would be nonsense, and misleading to future opps.

[Vampyr]

Indeed I omitted one intentionally when I wrote: "I think you can rely on the posters on this thread who are County TD or better in their country." At the time of writing that subset was all except, presumably, UdcaDenny. If I had included a comma after "thread", the meaning would have been different and unintended.

 

But how was Denny to know that all of the other participants in the thread until then were County or higher-ranked Directors? He did specifically ask. Your comment would be just as correct if no county directors had thus far replied to the thread. The OP wanted to know who was supplying the replies.

[UdcaDenny]

This isn't a complicated ruling, and this director is ignorant if he thinks the quality of director advice on these forums is poor. However -- I believe it's wise to not take a bad ruling at a club game personally, or be so worried about justice and being vindicated that you lose perspective. Most clubs do not have access to directors of the caliber on these forums. Most club directors (at least where I am in ACBL land) make very little. In our club, we make far less than minimum wage when you consider set up and tear down time, and it's as much volunteering as working. It's fine to explain why you think his ruling was wrong. IF the club supports appeals (and they are not required to, and many/most here don't), you're fine to ask for an appeal, but when you've pursued it that far, let it go. It's just a game, and if you got a poorer score than you deserved that evening, it doesn't make you a poorer bridge player in any way. As a club director I appreciate hearing why you think I've made a mistake in my ruling, but if you've shown him that, and he's not agreeing, and the club's fine with that, we're done with what we can/should do. There is no regulating authority that's going to overrule a club's ruling on a hand.

 

I've received many poor rulings (some particularly poor) over the past ten years or so. C'est la vie. I've appealed once, and that's only because the director in question was telling me I'd have to pre-alert all my opps that we responded ultra light to opening bids, just because partner responded with Axxx xxx xxx xxx once. I didn't care about the ruling on the hand, but that sort of pre-alerting would be nonsense, and misleading to future opps.

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.

[billw55]

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.

Well, you aren't going to get one from this director. Eventually you must either accept that or stop playing in his games.

 

For many people at clubs, it is primarily a social event. For them, being nice to each other is more important than following the rules. Directors and club management often accommodate this in their policies - giving the customers what they want. It isn't really unusual, or even necessarily bad, since many people like it that way. Again, you may need to get used to it.

 

 

 

[UdcaDenny]

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).

[pran]

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).

Law 45C4(b) is about changing an inadvertent designation, not about an inadvertent (or wrongly) played card.

 

The difference is material and should resolve your confusion on "what if LHO has already played a card".

[gordontd]

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.

We've all been referring to that law. The problem is that your TD and your friend in New York don't seem to understand the difference between played cards and designated cards.

 

The time for a pause for thought is considered to be measured from when the player realised the error, not from when he made it, so it's quite possible for the next hand to have already played.

[UdcaDenny]

Law 45C4(b) is about changing an inadvertent designation, not about an inadvertent (or wrongly) played card.

 

The difference is material and should resolve your confusion on "what if LHO has already played a card".

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.

[RMB1]

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.

 

It is very rare for declarer to make a designation (inadvertent or unintended or otherwise) when playing a card from his own hand. Note Law 45C(b) uses "unintended" not "inadvertent".

 

An example of an intended designation would be :

declarer says "I am going to play the ace of spades" and then plays the ace of spades from his hand.

 

An example of an unintended designation would be :

declarers says "I am going to play the ace of hearts" and then plays the ace of spades from his hand (and then says "oh, I meant to say ace of spades").

 

I do not think I have ever heard declarer designate a card to be played from his hand. It is safe for players and TDs to only be concerned with Law 45C4(b) when declarer designates cards to be played from dummy.

[Lanor Fow]

If i make a mistake of picking up my beer, thinking that the person to the right is going to take a while to think, and then they play a card. I could, instead of waiting till i put my drink down to play a card, name the card I intend to play. Play can then continue, and I will play the card I named when i have a hand free.

 

If i have designated the wrong card (rather than changing my mind afterwards), this would then fall under inadvertent designation.

 

This situation is unusual, most people in most situations where they do not have a hand free will free one up and play a card, rather than designate one. It is, however, common to designate cards from dummy, so cards inadvertent designation when calling cards from dummy is by far the most likely application of this law.

[campboy]

A more common reason than having full hands is that you've just dropped the card on the floor and want to save time while you find it again.

[Vampyr]

A more common reason than having full hands is that you've just dropped the card on the floor and want to save time while you find it again.

 

But who has seen this more than once or twice in their life? It might be best if the OP came away with the idea that a designated card is always a card in dummy, rather than being confused about the rare rare rare time that another hand designates a card.

[lamford]

But who has seen this more than once or twice in their life? It might be best if the OP came away with the idea that a designated card is always a card in dummy, rather than being confused about the rare rare rare time that another hand designates a card.

I have never experienced a card designated other than by declarer naming a card from dummy.

[pran]

I have never experienced a card designated other than by declarer naming a card from dummy.

Well, I (for one) have.

And the laws cater for the possibility without introducing any ambiguity or problem regardless of whether it has occurred or not.

 

So, does anybody really have any problem with this?