Declarer Play Rules Question

[Hikertrash]

Towards the end of a hand as declarer I played a Q of trump from my hand, LHO followed with a 5, with two trump left in the dummy, I accidentally called for the Ace, rather than the 6. I knew the King had previously been played and immediately tried to correct my mistake before RHO played their card. The LHO opponent objected and I conceded. I then played the last card 6 of trump from the dummy which was beat by the LHO J.

 

Was LHO correct considering it was the RHO turn to play and hadn't played their card before I tried to correct my mistake?

[Chas_P]

Towards the end of a hand as declarer I played a Q of trump from my hand, LHO followed with a 5, with two trump left in the dummy, I accidentally called for the Ace, rather than the 6. I knew the King had previously been played and immediately tried to correct my mistake before RHO played their card. The LHO opponent objected and I conceded. I then played the last card 6 of trump from the dummy which was beat by the LHO J.

 

Was LHO correct considering it was the RHO turn to play and hadn't played their card before I tried to correct my mistake?

 

ACBL Law 45C.4.(b) "Declarer may correct an unintended

designation of a card from dummy until he

next plays a card from either his own hand

or from dummy. A change of designation

may be allowed after a slip of the tongue,

but not after a loss of concentration or a

reconsideration of action."

[pescetom]

ACBL Law 45C.4.(b) "Declarer may correct an unintended

designation of a card from dummy until he

next plays a card from either his own hand

or from dummy. A change of designation

may be allowed after a slip of the tongue,

but not after a loss of concentration or a

reconsideration of action."

 

The orthodox position seems to be that your action should be considered a "slip of tongue", rather than a loss of concentration or a reconsideration of action.

I don't like it, given that you may well have reconsidered after a sudden doubt about the King and that in any case the laws have no pity for slips of tongue/brain or losses of concentration in other situations, including the directly analogous play of A rather than 6 from own hand.

[Chas_P]

The orthodox position seems to be that your action should be considered a "slip of tongue", rather than a loss of concentration or a reconsideration of action.

I don't like it, given that you may well have reconsidered after a sudden doubt about the King and that in any case the laws have no pity for slips of tongue/brain or losses of concentration in other situations, including the directly analogous play of Q rather than A from own hand.

 

But the OP said

I accidentally called for the Ace, rather than the 6. I knew the King had previously been played and immediately tried to correct my mistake before RHO played their card.

 

Sounds like a "slip of the tongue" to me, so according to The Law I think s/he should be allowed to change it.

[pescetom]

Sounds like a "slip of the tongue" to me, so according to The Law I think s/he should be allowed to change it.

And when s/he makes a "slip of the hand" playing Ace instead of 6 from own hand are you equally comfortable that s/he should not be allowed to change it?

[gordontd]

Sounds like a "slip of the tongue" to me, so according to The Law I think s/he should be allowed to change it.

Sounded more like a loss of concentration to me, but it's one of those things where you need to be there and able to ask the player questions in order to make a sensible determination.

[sfi]

And when s/he makes a "slip of the hand" playing Ace instead of 6 from own hand are you equally comfortable that s/he should not be allowed to change it?

That's a different situation, and the laws do not allow a change of card under those circumstances. The ace would would be a played card no matter what.

 

Gordon is right that the director needs to be there and ask questions, but I'm more inclined to believe that the declarer was simply one trick ahead when calling for the ace. That would be a loss of concentration rather than a slip of the tongue, so I typically rule the ace to be a played card unless there is compelling evidence otherwise.

[danhputnam]

I can understand a player making an unintended bid and not noticing it immediately (perhaps static cling or sticky bidding cards), but with calling a card from dummy, if it's not corrected in a millisecond, how can it not be a lack of concentration? My question would be how long it took to correct.

[gordontd]

I can understand a player making an unintended bid and not noticing it immediately (perhaps static cling or sticky bidding cards), but with calling a card from dummy, if it's not corrected in a millisecond, how can it not be a lack of concentration? My question would be how long it took to correct.

The law clearly anticipates that not all such things are noticed immediately. If it really is unintended it won't be noticed until at least when dummy puts the "wrong" card in the played position. Another case is when the player is using an unfamiliar language - it's easy then for the wrong word to come out.

[Chas_P]

but it's one of those things where you need to be there and able to ask the player questions in order to make a sensible determination.

 

Exactly. And the director was not called. Declarer just acquiesced and life goes on.

[PhilG007]

Towards the end of a hand as declarer I played a Q of trump from my hand, LHO followed with a 5, with two trump left in the dummy, I accidentally called for the Ace, rather than the 6. I knew the King had previously been played and immediately tried to correct my mistake before RHO played their card. The LHO opponent objected and I conceded. I then played the last card 6 of trump from the dummy which was beat by the LHO J.

 

Was LHO correct considering it was the RHO turn to play and hadn't played their card before I tried to correct my mistake?

 

If this deal occurred during a tournament.then why wasn't't the TD called (?!) That's what he/shed is there for......to settle disputes(!)

[pescetom]

Exactly. And the director was not called. Declarer just acquiesced and life goes on.

 

Declarer acquiesced but clearly wasn't happy, or there would not be this post.

LHO was unhappy and said so.

Director was unhappy he was not called, but maybe also unhappy with the law that requires him to play psychologist.

 

In other sports life goes on too, but things are simpler. Everyone knows what happens if you 'slip' and touch the wrong piece in chess or put your foot in the wrong lane in athletics or take the ball over the side line in soccer or whatever. Those who made the mistake blame themselves or fate but not the laws, opponents and Directors sleep happily.

[Chas_P]

Declarer acquiesced but clearly wasn't happy, or there would not be this post.

LHO was unhappy and said so.

Director was unhappy he was not called, but maybe also unhappy with the law that requires him to play psychologist.

 

In other sports life goes on too, but things are simpler. Everyone knows what happens if you 'slip' and touch the wrong piece in chess or put your foot in the wrong lane in athletics or take the ball over the side line in soccer or whatever. Those who made the mistake blame themselves or fate but not the laws, opponents and Directors sleep happily.

 

Agreed. I judged, from the OP's presentation of the incident, it to be a slip of the tongue. Gordon judged it to be a loss of concentration. But neither of us really knows because we weren't there. Hopefully Hikertrash has learned from all this conversation to call the director whenever there is contention about a call or play and get a ruling. We can't make rulings if you settle your own arguments. We'll just be sitting at the computer playing on BBO while waiting to move boards when the round ends. :)

[Vampyr]

Agreed. I judged, from the OP's presentation of the incident, it to be a slip of the tongue. Gordon judged it to be a loss of concentration. But neither of us really knows because we weren't there. Hopefully Hikertrash has learned from all this conversation to call the director whenever there is contention about a call or play and get a ruling. We can't make rulings if you settle your own arguments. We'll just be sitting at the computer playing on BBO while waiting to move boards when the round ends. :)

 

I think it is very clear that this was a lapse in concentration. Players often don’t understand what this means; ie they are looking at the ace or thinking about playing it at the next trick, etc and seem to think that naming it could be a slip of the tongue.

[pescetom]

I think it is very clear that this was a lapse in concentration. Players often don’t understand what this means; ie they are looking at the ace or thinking about playing it at the next trick, etc and seem to think that naming it could be a slip of the tongue.

 

I envy your certainty here.

Could you give a counter-example where a (valid) call of a card from dummy is very clearly a slip of the tongue?

[barmar]

I envy your certainty here.

Could you give a counter-example where a (valid) call of a card from dummy is very clearly a slip of the tongue?

Declarer thinks "low" but says "ace". Declarer sees dummy play the ace and says something like "I said low, not ace."

 

Even though everyone heard "ace", if the TD believes declarer, he allows the correction.

[phoenixmj]

Question about a mechanical error - Can a mechanical bidding error come from two different sections of the box? Seems more like a lapse in concentration than mechanical.

[PhilG007]

I hope as a result of this unfortunate incident,Hikertrash has learned from his bitter experience and if playing in future tournaments,

he will summon the Aribiter when a dispute arises. For many players,The Laws of Bridge are an arcane mystery and it makes sense,

if there is a referee to place the matter in their experienced hands.for an unbiased ruling..

[barmar]

Question about a mechanical error - Can a mechanical bidding error come from two different sections of the box? Seems more like a lapse in concentration than mechanical.

I think it's generally assumed that this can't be a mechanical error. The intended card needs to be near the card pulled -- either the adjacent suit or the same suit in the next/preceding row.

[Zelandakh]

The law clearly anticipates that not all such things are noticed immediately. If it really is unintended it won't be noticed until at least when dummy puts the "wrong" card in the played position. Another case is when the player is using an unfamiliar language - it's easy then for the wrong word to come out.

I can attest to this from personal experience. I have already several times said "Coeur" instead of "Karo" or the reverse. I can also give a great answer to pescetom's question, as on one of those occasions Dummy did not have any of the named suit making it rather clear to all that it was a wrong designation.

[blackshoe]

I think it's generally assumed that this can't be a mechanical error. The intended card needs to be near the card pulled -- either the adjacent suit or the same suit in the next/preceding row.

It is generally so assumed. Some 95% of the time or more the assumption will be correct. However, it is not correct 100% of the time. The director should investigate, without bias, and be certain in his own mind which law applies before he makes his ruling.

[barmar]

It is generally so assumed. Some 95% of the time or more the assumption will be correct. However, it is not correct 100% of the time. The director should investigate, without bias, and be certain in his own mind which law applies before he makes his ruling.

Carl Sagan had a saying: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Of course the TD should be impartial, but you would need to be quite convincing about how your hand "slipped" so far.