[BudH]

Lead is in dummy with Q2 of hearts. Declarer verbally calls either "heart" or "low heart".

As the defender behind dummy is about to play second to the trick, dummy asks "which heart?" and declarer then says "the queen". You as Director are called to the table.

Has dummy prevented use of Law 45C4(b) to allow a correction to the queen?

"Until his partner has played a card, a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought."

[blackshoe]

This requires investigation. If dummy only heard part of the designation, he can ask for clarification, but if the designation was the single word "heart", then I would rule that declarer has called for the heart 2 (Law 46B2) and dummy has illegally suggested a play (Law 42A3, Law 43A1c). If there is evidence declarer's designation was unintended, he may change it (Law 45C4b). The director's decision whether 45C4b applies is independent of his decision whether Law 43A1c applies. If the designation was not unintended, it cannot be changed. If it was unintended, it can be changed. If dummy participated in the play (Law 43A1c) he has committed a serious violation (see the Introduction to the laws) and should receive a procedural penalty (Law 43B1, Law 90).

[barmar]

If declarer really said "low heart" I would need an extremely convincing argument to believe it was unintended.

As dummy I only ask "which" when I truly had trouble hearing the designation clearly, or if partner calls for a card that isn't actually there. For instance, sometimes it's hard to distinguish "ace" and "eight".

[BudH]

I was given this situation by a director at my local club.

Presumably, we can agree IF DUMMY HAD STAYED SILENT, if declarer calls "heart", RHO plays low as dummy is taking the H2 out of dummy, and before declarer plays from hand she says "no, I meant the queen", then you would allow the change to the HQ under Law 45C4(b).

It is dummy saying "which heart" (and we'll never know if dummy was deliberately influencing declarer or simply didn't hear completely what was said) which I question possibly "breaking the link" causing a declarer "pause for thought" and therefore preventing correction under Law 45C4(b).

[ggwhiz]

BudH, on 2016-July-16, 03:17, said:

Lead is in dummy with Q2 of hearts. Declarer verbally calls either "heart" or "low heart".

If this is determined as fact to the Directors satisfaction, it's over and the 2 is played.

[BudH]

It woukd make it easier on directors if it was "you said it, you played ir" and no corrections of any kind for any reason allowed.

However, declarer is allowed to change a card called from dummy if done without pause for thought.

See http://web2.acbl.org...-from-Dummy.pdf

[gordontd]

BudH, on 2016-July-16, 11:09, said:

I was given this situation by a director at my local club.

Presumably, we can agree IF DUMMY HAD STAYED SILENT, if declarer calls "heart", RHO plays low as dummy is taking the H2 out of dummy, and before declarer plays from hand she says "no, I meant the queen", then you would allow the change to the HQ under Law 45C4(b).

Not necessarily. We would still need to ask declarer questions to decide whether we are satisfied that his intended card really was the HQ.

BudH, on 2016-July-16, 11:09, said:

It is dummy saying "which heart" (and we'll never know if dummy was deliberately influencing declarer or simply didn't hear completely what was said) which I question possibly "breaking the link" causing a declarer "pause for thought" and therefore preventing correction under Law 45C4(b).

Since it was an incomplete call I think we should first be looking to Law 46 and considering whether "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible".

[RMB1]

gordontd, on 2016-July-17, 01:22, said:

Since it was an incomplete call I think we should first be looking to Law 46 and considering whether "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible".

If dummy asked "which heart?" because dummy thought it was obvious that declarer wanted to play the queen, then this is evidence that declarer's intention was to play ♥Q, that is it is evidence that "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible".

[barmar]

If declarer was in the middle of running a suit that started AKQ2, I could believe that his other intention was incontrovertible. In other situations, it's harder to imagine.

[blackshoe]

That dummy thought declarer's intention was to play the queen has no bearing, as far as I can see, on declarer's actual intention. The director needs to find out what declarer's thought was when he called for the deuce. Possibly he simply got ahead of himself. If that's the case, do we let him correct his error? If we do so in this case, what about other cases where he has momentarily lost the plot?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-July-17, 13:33, said:

If we do so in this case, what about other cases where he has momentarily lost the plot?

Does everyone remember the famous "Oh, *****!" ruling in the Bermuda Bowl?

[blackshoe]

March 1999 Vanderbilt KOs in Vancouver.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-July-18, 09:00, said:

March 1999 Vanderbilt KOs in Vancouver.

Oops, sorry.

Was there some other famously bad ruling in a BB? Or did I just forget which high-level event was involved?

[pran]

barmar, on 2016-July-18, 09:15, said:

Oops, sorry.

Was there some other famously bad ruling in a BB? Or did I just forget which high-level event was involved?

There was (I believe) a BB final years ago with Lauria declaring the final board. His partner had left the table for whatever reason and Lauria, having to play both hands, made a very bad play from dummy (a low spade instead of the ten of spades?), in fact losing the board and the match???

He tried to get away with a claim that he had just re-arranged the cards in dummy to get hold of the desired card, but if I remember correct the ruling went against him.

The way I remember it the ruling was obvious and correct.


I searched and found: America wins Bermuda Bowl

[mycroft]

The A8 solution is "simple" (FCVO...): "Top heart" and "eightspot".

It is very likely that declarer is one trick ahead of himself, and dummy just woke him up. In fact, the only time I remember a ruling like this one, I was dummy. After "diamond" (9 played from Q9), J, 3, heart, partner called for the 9. When told that it wasn't her lead and the 9 was gone,...

[barmar]

pran, on 2016-July-18, 09:54, said:

There was (I believe) a BB final years ago with Lauria declaring the final board. His partner had left the table for whatever reason and Lauria, having to play both hands, made a very bad play from dummy (a low spade instead of the ten of spades?), in fact losing the board and the match???

He tried to get away with a claim that he had just re-arranged the cards in dummy to get hold of the desired card, but if I remember correct the ruling went against him.

The way I remember it the ruling was obvious and correct.

I searched and found: America wins Bermuda Bowl

Yeah, that's the one I was thinking of. I think I may have conflated them, thinking that he said the expletive as he was "playing" the card from dummy.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2016-July-18, 10:57, said:

It is very likely that declarer is one trick ahead of himself, and dummy just woke him up. In fact, the only time I remember a ruling like this one, I was dummy. After "diamond" (9 played from Q9), J, 3, heart, partner called for the 9. When told that it wasn't her lead and the 9 was gone,...

If it's the "trick ahead of themselves" situation, I wouldn't accept a claim that declarer's different intention was incontrovertible. When you make a wrong play because you've gotten confused, that's a slip of the mind, not a slip of the tongue, and you're stuck with it.

[mycroft]

Argh, conflated two things.

First sentence was me agreeing with you - if declarer is a trick ahead of the play, then the play stands. That (and it was in fact what he wanted to do, and he didn't see the K and ...) is almost all of the cases.

After that was "here's the only time I can remember getting away with something like this" to give some idea as to the level of explanation that fits "declarer didn't misspeak, even though the other three players heard the misspeak - or if she did, her intention was incontrovertible".

Sorry about that.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2016-July-18, 09:00, said:

March 1999 Vanderbilt KOs in Vancouver.

Appeals Case 5 on page 4. This is the official write-up - there is also a rather more colourful one available written from the Wolff side of things.

[BudH]

barmar, on 2016-July-18, 12:56, said:

If it's the "trick ahead of themselves" situation, I wouldn't accept a claim that declarer's different intention was incontrovertible. When you make a wrong play because you've gotten confused, that's a slip of the mind, not a slip of the tongue, and you're stuck with it.

The "trick ahead of themselves" situation is used as an example several times in ACBL's FAQ document when declarer IS allowed to correct his called card from dummy.