[gwnn]

small slam, declarer has a sidesuit of
xx(dummy)
KJxx(hand)

he eventually plays small from dummy and J from hand, his LHO plays small but immediately wants to correct it to the Q. He says that he wanted to play the Q but grabbed the wrong card by accident (he never intended to play small, not even as a brain fart). Can he change his card?

Yep this is probably straight from the laws but now I see that the laws say something else than what I thought they said.

[RMB1]

If he took the card out of his hand and placed it on the table, it is played - no option to change - there is no "mechanical error" for played cards.

[blackshoe]

if he held it in a position where his partner could have seen its face, it's a played card as well. Or must be played, if you want to be picky.

[pran]

It is important to be aware that RMB1's answer applies to "plays" by declarer (only), blackshoe's is more strict and the rule that applies to the defending side.

Declarer can for instance accidentally "drop" a card on the table and may still take it back and play a different card.

Defenders do not "enjoy" this privilege.
Sorry, my mistake when reading Law 45C1 (which requires that the exposed card is actually "held" or "played", not accidentally "dropped")

[gwnn]

What is the difference between this situation and
http://www.bridgebas...n-exposed-card/
?

[RMB1]

pran, on 2012-October-12, 04:39, said:

It is important to be aware that RMB1's answer applies to "plays" by declarer (only), ...

I do not understand. If defender deliberately puts a card on the table (face up) it is played and can not be changed.

[RMB1]

gwnn, on 2012-October-12, 04:51, said:

What is the difference between this situation and
http://www.bridgebas...n-exposed-card/
?

In the latter situation the S5 was dropped, in this situation the card was taken out defender's hand and put on the table.

[gwnn]

OK to me it seems like just a very slightly higher degree of clumsiness but fair enough, now I know the rules. Thanks.

[mycroft]

One is clumsiness that (probably) involves the conscious part of the brain (which is not allowed), either to find or to correct; one does not. Bridge is a thinking game - you are allowed not to think, not to pay attention, but you aren't allowed to recover from it. You are allowed to trip and fumble and do other things that don't require thinking; there may be forced to be rectification just to keep a level playing field, but not the "sorry, you're stuck with it" as in the other case.

I do have an issue with the Kxx - - Kxxx thread going on, where designating the "King of spades/no, clubs" is something I do once every couple of months. There is no rethinking; I want to play a club and the word spade comes out (and vice versa). *Usually* it's obvious from my reaction that it wasn't a change of mind; at least nobody's ever complained about it. When I believe that it wouldn't fit under the ACBL's (because there I play) explanation that "the onus is on declarer to prove it was misdesignation, the standard of proof is OVERWHELMING" - I let it go. Oddly enough, for me that's only *ever* the black suits (almost always spade when I meant club, but occasionally the other way)...

[gwnn]

I don't know, it has happened to me that I wanted to play the 5 of spades but ended up playing the 3 of clubs (a revoke) that was right next to it and only saw it when it hit the table. It was not conscious at all - just a mechanical error. Maybe I'm living in a different dimension. Of course it would cause millions of cases where defenders would pretend that this happened, this is also the case with mechanical errors regarding the bidding boxes. Indeed, why is there a rule that protect you from mechanical errors re. bidding boxes but not re. playing cards?

[iviehoff]

gwnn, on 2012-October-11, 16:04, said:

He says that he wanted to play the Q but grabbed the wrong card by accident (he never intended to play small, not even as a brain fart). Can he change his card?

Dropping a card accidentally is a kind of mechanical error, and conventional wisdom suggests that defenders can sometimes recover from that mechanical error. So why not this one? After all, the description you give here appears to me entirely consistent with the card being "exposed unintentionally" (L50B). That would make it (by force of its low rank and being only one of it) a minor penalty card, if in fact could become a penalty card (L49) rather than a played card. But I don't think it can.

Under L49, cards become penalty cards only if they are exposed "Except in the normal course of play or application of law". So, was this card, unmindfully selected, exposed in the "normal course of play"? I think it was. At L45A, we read that "Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him" (with an exception for the face down opening lead). This is precisely what happened. L45C1 tells us "A defender’s card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick" (with potential exceptions when a player has already played a card to the present trick - and presumably exceptions if there isn't a present trick because no one has led yet). So even if it didn't get as far as the table, it must proceed there if it was held visible, rather than dropped. It is apparent the critical words here are "detaching" and "held". Expose it by dropping it, and it is a penalty card not a played card. Make it visible by detaching it from your hand and holding it visible, and it is played, or must be played, even if wasnt the one you wanted your fingers to take.

So defenders can recover from the mechanical error of dropping a card, provided it is a single card of low rank. But the kind of mechanical error that involves you taking the wrong card in your fingers, detaching it from your hand and then facing it or holding it visible, you cannot recover from that one.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2012-October-12, 09:51, said:

"the onus is on declarer to prove it was misdesignation, the standard of proof is OVERWHELMING"

This bit looks familiar, but I confess I don't recall where I've seen it. Can you tell me where to look?

[mycroft]

Tech files :-)

In making decisions under this Law in the future, we have the
following instructions from the Laws Commission.

1. 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.

[blackshoe]

Tech files. I figured as much. I suppose somewhere in the depths of HQ there's an actual document from the LC.

I once had a player (he's about 6'4") stand up and lean over me while explaining in a loud voice why he called me. If he had been explaining why his call was inadvertent, would that evidence have been "overwhelming"?

Personal opinion: I doubt it's possible for a player to provide overwhelming evidence that his call for a card was inadvertent. But perhaps that was the LC's intent.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-12, 18:26, said:

Personal opinion: I doubt it's possible for a player to provide overwhelming evidence that his call for a card was inadvertent. But perhaps that was the LC's intent.

How would you contrast this recommendation with Law 46B's reference to declarer's intent being "incontrovertible"? Both require some amount of mind reading, it seems.

[blackshoe]

First, it isn't a recommendation. It's apparently an ACBLLC interpretation of law. As for 46B, "incontrovertible" means "indisputable", so at first glance the cases seem similar, perhaps even identical. The difference is that the ACBL interpretation puts the onus most emphatically on the player to prove that his call was inadvertant, and the law itself does not require that.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-14, 17:43, said:

First, it isn't a recommendation. It's apparently an ACBLLC interpretation of law. As for 46B, "incontrovertible" means "indisputable", so at first glance the cases seem similar, perhaps even identical. The difference is that the ACBL interpretation puts the onus most emphatically on the player to prove that his call was inadvertant, and the law itself does not require that.

But since the arbiter is the TD in both cases, there's probably not much practical difference. In both cases, declarer will explain what he meant to do, and the TD has to judge whether this meets his standard for overwhelming or incontrovertible.

[blackshoe]

I wonder if an ACBL TD has ever deemed the evidence presented in such a case to be "incontrovertible" or "overwhelming".

[campboy]

gwnn, on 2012-October-12, 09:59, said:

Indeed, why is there a rule that protect you from mechanical errors re. bidding boxes but not re. playing cards?

Because it doesn't matter when you change an inadvertent 2♠ bid that partner now knows there is a 2♠ card in your bidding box.

[gwnn]

Good point but wouldn't that apply also to dropped cards?