Declarer - card 'played'

[euclidz]

Dummy holds 10♦ and 6♦, Declarer calls for the 6♦ then, before Dummy picks up the 6♦ says, “Sorry, 10♦.” Is the 6♦ played as soon as Declarer names it or is he allowed change an ‘unintended’ call?

 

 

LAW 45: CARD PLAYED

B. Play of Card from Dummy

Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card.

 

C 4(b) Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought.

[barmar]

This is changing in the 2017 revision:

(b) Declarer may correct an unintended designation of a card from dummy up until he nexxt plays a card from either his own hand or from dummy. A change of desgnation may be allowed after a slip of the tongue, but not after a loss of concentration or a reconsideration of action.

So the TD must ask the player what happened: was it a slip of the tongue, or a mental lapse?

[barmar]

I suspect it's more likely to be a tongue-slip if he had initially said just "diamond", not named the card fully.

[mycroft]

The EBU white book, I am sure, will have chapter and verse on how the TD is to determine whether, in her opinion, the T was "unintended" and corrected "without...thought". Actually I checked and on quick check, it's pretty light. I'm sure the EBU TDs will have a better idea.

The ACBL guidance is brutal: "IN DETERMINING "INADVERTENT," THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE DECLARER. THE STANDARD OF PROOF IS "OVERWHELMING." Unless there is such proof to the contrary, the director should assume that the card called was the intended one."

 

Note that the emphasis (and therefore, my elision) in "without pause for thought" is "thought". If there is belief that thought has occurred, it doesn't matter how long it takes the person to do the thinking. Similarly, if no change of thought could possibly have occurred until the attempted correction, it doesn't matter (barring "when declarer plays...") how long it takes for awareness of the unintended designation to get to declarer.

[nige1]

Simple and fairer would be to disallow change of a bid legally made or card legally played.

 

Unfortunately the current rule conforms to WBF policy. It gives more power to directors. It punishes honest players and rewards plausible liars. It maintains the verbosity, complexity, and subjectivity of the rules,.

[euclidz]

In this case, with dummy having just 10♦ and 6♦ Declarer stated "6♦" which was clearly and obviously, to all at the table, to be a stupid (losing) choice. I concluded that Declarer made that call carelessly rather than tripping over his tongue and having stated his choice he realised it to be the wrong/bad/losing choice and then wanted to correct it albeit correct it within seconds. The question is . . . is he allowed to make that correction i.e. can he change his choice, substitute his first (careless) choice with a second (considered) choice before dummy touches the card?

[blackshoe]

No, he can't. It has nothing to do with when or whether dummy touches the card. The play is made when declarer names the card.

[weejonnie]

These are a few examples including one like the 'Oh s**t' case from Vancouver.

[euclidz]

These are a few examples including one like the 'Oh s**t' case from Vancouver.

 

Thanks but I am not sure if I am any clearer. From my reading of these examples it seems to come down to making a judgement call on what was in the mind of Declarer / what Declarer's intent was and if the line of play is obvious then we can presume that the stated play was mouth moving in a different direction than brain. If you take Board 4 for example where Declarer plays K♠ and calls for A♠ from dummy then changes to small the decision seems to be that clearly no sane person could have intended to put his Ace and his King so it must have been a slip of the tongue rather than intent. And, if that is the case, in the example I gave, I should have investigated why Declarer stated 6♦ rather than 10♦ and if that was because he was thinking about his next play i.e. the play after the 10♦ and his mouth moved with that thought rather than his intended play, I should have allowed the change?

[mycroft]

Read the white book commentary about this Law. You may *still* not be any clearer, but at least you'll be confused in your NBO's approved manner.

[blackshoe]

:lol:

[weejonnie]

Thanks but I am not sure if I am any clearer. From my reading of these examples it seems to come down to making a judgement call on what was in the mind of Declarer / what Declarer's intent was and if the line of play is obvious then we can presume that the stated play was mouth moving in a different direction than brain. If you take Board 4 for example where Declarer plays K♠ and calls for A♠ from dummy then changes to small the decision seems to be that clearly no sane person could have intended to put his Ace and his King so it must have been a slip of the tongue rather than intent. And, if that is the case, in the example I gave, I should have investigated why Declarer stated 6♦ rather than 10♦ and if that was because he was thinking about his next play i.e. the play after the 10♦ and his mouth moved with that thought rather than his intended play, I should have allowed the change?

All you can do is weigh up the balance of probabilities - if you still can't decide then you make a decision that will enable play to continue.

You can ask the declarer "Why did you call for the 6?", but I suspect that he would say, if appropriate, "That was the card I was going to play after the 10 - I just got ahead of myself". You may or may not believe that - and allow the change. You may of course be lucky and get no reply or a "I wasn't thinking and called low automatically" - in which case you disallow it.

 

There are several rules that work very well - provided the TD is a mind-reader or the players are 100% honest.

[mycroft]

[sort-of-quote user=weejonnie]Interests: ... Pedantary, Trolling"[/sort-of-quote]

 

I see what you did there. Well done. Bastard.

[gordontd]

You can ask the declarer "Why did you call for the 6?", but I suspect that he would say, if appropriate, "That was the card I was going to play after the 10 - I just got ahead of myself". You may or may not believe that - and allow the change.

If I got that answer I wouldn't allow the change.

[VixTD]

You can ask the declarer "Why did you call for the 6?", but I suspect that he would say, if appropriate, "That was the card I was going to play after the 10 - I just got ahead of myself". You may or may not believe that - and allow the change.

You may also believe that and not allow the change. I'm not sure I would.

[euclidz]

Thanks for all the helpful replies

[blackshoe]

If a player told me he "got ahead of himself" I wouldn't allow the change either.

[mycroft]

Absolutely - if he was one trick ahead of himself, then realizing he was one trick ahead of himself and correcting is clearly thought, therefore clearly the misstatement was a braino, not a moutho, therefore you're stuck with it just as much as if you were one trick ahead of yourself and played the ♦6 from hand instead of the ♦10.

[weejonnie]

Fair enough

[barmar]

All you can do is weigh up the balance of probabilities - if you still can't decide then you make a decision that will enable play to continue.

You can ask the declarer "Why did you call for the 6?", but I suspect that he would say, if appropriate, "That was the card I was going to play after the 10 - I just got ahead of myself". You may or may not believe that - and allow the change. You may of course be lucky and get no reply or a "I wasn't thinking and called low automatically" - in which case you disallow it.

 

There are several rules that work very well - provided the TD is a mind-reader or the players are 100% honest.

Doesn't the new wording of the law make it clearer that these changes should not be allowed? Both of these are a "loss of concentration".

 

It does seem like this is a very tricky point in the Laws. The mind is directly connected to the mouth/tongue, so there's a very fuzzy line between a brain fart and a slip of the tongue. It's not like the mechanical errors that can easily occur when you're playing cards or pulling bidding cards from a box -- there's nothing analogous to cards sticking together or accidentally being dropped.