[azarah]

We had a ruling at the Club under Law 45.4. (b) which surprised me.

I was under the impression that any card called for by declarer is a played card.

The director ruled in favour of declarer on the following,

Declarer (south) led from his hand and west ruffed.
Declarer called a card from the table which effectively was an underruff.
He immediately realised he had made a mistake, & corrected this to a higher trump & claimed it was an "unintended designation".

I thought that once a card is called for, it is played.

The clause referred to above seems to cast doubt on this. Was the director right? If he was wrong can you please provide an example of where clause 4(b) in Law 45 applies.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 45C4{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).

Whether a change or attempted change is "without pause for thought" is a judgment matter — and the person whose judgment applies is the TD. So the TD is within his rights to judge this change "without pause for thought". BTW, "pause for thought" is taken to mean "from the time the player realized the card was not the one he intended to play", not "from the time the card was played", as some people think.

I wasn't at the table, so I'm not going to say the TD was wrong here.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-13, 11:47, said:

I wasn't at the table, so I'm not going to say the TD was wrong here.

...but it does sound as though it was probably a change of mind rather than an inadvertent designation.

[bluejak]

Let me explain.

If you call for the wrong card from dummy, suppose you mean to play the spade ace but absentmindedly call "small", realise immediately, and try to change it, you will be allowed to. You have not changed your mind, just said the wrong thing, and this change is allowed.

But in the case you said it is very unlikely that this is what happened. Declarer intended to ruff low, a high trump went in, so he changed his mind. If this is the case the change should not be allowed. Only if he originally meant to play the high trump is the change allowed - and that seems very unlikely.

[Free]

Looks like TD and declarer are good friends. This is a classic case where declarer doesn't look at LHO's card before calling a card in dummy, only to realize later that his card in dummy is useless. It's like playing to AQ, LHO plays the K and declarer calls for "the Q ... euh the A ofcourse". It's clear what declarer intended to do and it's too late to change his mind.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-13, 11:47, said:

Whether a change or attempted change is "without pause for thought" is a judgment matter — and the person whose judgment applies is the TD. So the TD is within his rights to judge this change "without pause for thought".

And, in this underruff scenario, Posts 3,4,and 5 explain why a TD's judgement would be questionable if he judged the designation as unintended. No question he is within his rights; doubtful he is in his right mind.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2011-October-13, 11:58, said:

...but it does sound as though it was probably a change of mind rather than an inadvertent designation.

I did word that part of my post very carefully.

[Vampyr]

This happened to me recently. My partner said "ruff", but his LHO had played a trump higher than dummy's lowest. I played a lower trump, and neither my partner nor I would have dreamed of calling the director or trying to change the designation/card.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-13, 19:19, said:

This happened to me recently. My partner said "ruff", but his LHO had played a trump higher than dummy's lowest. I played a lower trump, and neither my partner nor I would have dreamed of calling the director or trying to change the designation/card.

Of course you wouldn't; you know what a brain fart is ---as compared against a truly unintended designation, and would be embarrassed to let anyone other than partner and the opponents (and this entire forum) know what happened. It would not be acceptable to you to try for a TD having a brain fart as well.

[VixTD]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-13, 19:19, said:

This happened to me recently. My partner said "ruff", but his LHO had played a trump higher than dummy's lowest. I played a lower trump, and neither my partner nor I would have dreamed of calling the director or trying to change the designation/card.

This is how I would act too, and probably how I would rule if called to sort this out. Declarer's intention is clear, he is intending to play the lowest available trump and thereby (an overtrump from RHO notwithstanding) win the trick.

My only misgiving is that I think the verb ruff means specifically to win a trick by trumping, not just to play a trump, so if declarer called "trump" that could mean "play a trump", but if they call "ruff" one could argue they are calling for a winning trump.

[mjj29]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-13, 19:19, said:

This happened to me recently. My partner said "ruff", but his LHO had played a trump higher than dummy's lowest. I played a lower trump, and neither my partner nor I would have dreamed of calling the director or trying to change the designation/card.

The cunning thing to do is notice and say "with the 9" quickly enough that you can get away with it being part of the same sentence

[bluejak]

VixTD, on 2011-October-14, 07:03, said:

This is how I would act too, and probably how I would rule if called to sort this out. Declarer's intention is clear, he is intending to play the lowest available trump and thereby (an overtrump from RHO notwithstanding) win the trick.

My only misgiving is that I think the verb ruff means specifically to win a trick by trumping, not just to play a trump, so if declarer called "trump" that could mean "play a trump", but if they call "ruff" one could argue they are calling for a winning trump.

I don't: I think "ruff" is synonymous with "play a trump".

[aguahombre]

VixTD, on 2011-October-14, 07:03, said:

My only misgiving is that I think the verb ruff means specifically to win a trick by trumping, not just to play a trump,

bluejak, on 2011-October-14, 11:02, said:

I don't: I think "ruff" is synonymous with "play a trump".

At least one dictionary agrees with bluejack; and I couldn't find a source that agrees with VixTD.

"The playing of a trump card when one cannot follow suit.......To trump or play a trump."

[barmar]

The verb "overruff" is usually used if you mean to play a trump that's higher than the previous player's trump in order to win the trick.

Although I admit that I've never heard a declarer use the word "ruff" when he wasn't trying to win the trick with the trump. If LHO has ruffed, and declarer is also playing a trump from dummy, he usually says "trump" (lowest), "overruff" (lowest that beats LHO), "underruff" (lowest, which also happens to be lower than LHO's), "ruff high" (highest), or calls a specific card.

[blackshoe]

You left out "win it".