[crazy4hoop]

This excerpt from the tech files seems to contradict that:

NOTE: Directors should be alert to situations where an apparent
inadvertency is actually an instance of the declarer thinking ahead,
i.e., calling a card to the current trick that he really intends to
play to a subsequent trick. For example, declarer has led his
singleton to dummy's AK of an off suit. He plans to cash both and take
a pitch from his hand and then play a trump towards his hand. Before
he cashes the second high card from dummy he calls for dummy's trump
and then wants to retract it as inadvertent. To be deemed inadvertent,
a called card from dummy must be solely the result of a slip of the
tongue and not a momentary mental lapse. Hence, declarers attempted
changed may not be allowed. (Office policy - 12/2003)

[blackshoe]

Maybe it's just me, but when I see stuff like this labelled "office policy" I wonder who this guy "office" is, and why we should care what he thinks.

And also what the Law Commission would have to say about this subject.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-July-20, 11:50, said:

Maybe it's just me, but when I see stuff like this labelled "office policy" I wonder who this guy "office" is, and why we should care what he thinks.

And also what the Law Commission would have to say about this subject.

I don't know anything about "office policy", but in my opinion it is an intentional (mis-)play when a declarer is "one trick ahead" and play the card he really intended to play to the trick after the current trick.

It isn't a slip of the tongue when he calls that card, it is a lapse of the mind about which trick he really is playing to.

So I agree with the quoted "office policy" whatever the word "office" indicates.