c_corgi, on 2012-August-10, 05:15, said:
Using Ahydra's example of AQ over the king. With AQ in declarers hand and the K on his right, LHO leads the suit and RHO plays the king. My understanding is that there is a distinction between:
1. Declarer intends to play the Ace, but looks down and finds the Queen on the table instead
2. Declarer intends to win the trick as cheaply as possible, but miscalculates, momentarily thinking that the Queen will have the desired effect.
I think in case 1 he is allowed to change the card and in case 2 he is not.
I believe that the fact that you think that since in case 1 he is allowed to change the card, he is allowed to change the card in the OP. However, in case 1 above declarer is not allowed to change the card; perhaps that knowledge will change your assessment of the OP case.
kevperk, on 2012-August-14, 16:35, said:
My point is, it seems silly to rule based on whether declarer is lucky enough to not have the rank named in another suit.
Declarer committed an infraction. Yes, it is a matter of luck whether or not he lands on his feet, as is very often the case with infractions. Sometimes a "meaningless" revoke will result in the loss of a trick, and sometimes the revoke with the same card in the same contract won't -- for example, if in the latter case the defenders had already won all the tricks they were entitled to.
I think that it is best to follow the rules, and not to worry about whether some people seemingly "get away with it" when they do not follow them, while others don't. Should the fact that one offender emerged unharmed mean that all should? In this case rules are meaningless.