[jules101]

Law 46 - INCOMPLETE OF ERRONEOUS CALL OF A CARD FROM DUMMY

B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call

reads....

In the case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of a card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible):

etc
etc

In what circumstances are "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible"?




Two case studies are given below.

Is declarer's different intent incontrovertible in either or both of these situations?




Case Study 1

Part way through playing hand declarer is in dummy, and calls for low ♣ when his holdings are:

          DUMMY

          ♣AJT


          ♣Q

          HAND

Declarer's RHO plays the K.

As the K is being played, declarer realises what he's done, and says he called for the wrong card and this was "mechanical error". He states his intention was to call for the Ace.


We can all see it would indeed be a silly play (and the setting trick), it was what declarer would have planned.

a] may declarer change the card called for?

b] does it make any difference when the next hand (declarer's RHO) has played to the trick?

c] may declarer ask his RHO to accept this is a "mechanical error"?

d] if RHO is persuaded by declarer that dummy's card may be retracted may the other defender object?



Case Study 2

Declarer has set up a long high spade card in dummy onto which she intends to throw a loser from hand.

A lot of effort went into setting up the winner [lots of ruffing and crossing to dummy and ruffing, etc], and all can see declarer's intent.

When in dummy for the last time, and with her winner established, declarer calls for "spade" (meaning to call for high spade, but as in case study 1 the declarer has had a momentary lapse). The low spade played will lose the trick, so no discard opportunity (this is the setting trick).

As in case study 1 all at table can see this would be a silly play, and that on her last "visit" to dummy (and after all that effort) it had been declarer's intention to call for the higher card.

May declarer:

a] immediately change her call?

b] does it make any difference if the next hand has played a card or not?

[TylerE]

Pay more attention next time. I don't allow a change in either case.

[blackshoe]

In both cases, declarer may well have (mistakenly) at the moment he called for a card, intended to call for that card. In such a situation, his different intention is not incontrovertible, and he may not change the call.

[peachy]

Good example of incontrovertible intention is when declarer calls for a "club" while at the same time pointing finger to the ceiling. Or "run the clubs". Or "finesse" when there is AQ in dummy. Of course none of these is the right way to call for a card from dummy but the intention in all these examples is clear.

The cases you posted, declarer may not change the card that was called.

[mjj29]

peachy, on Sep 28 2010, 12:42 AM, said:

Good example of incontrovertible intention is when declarer calls for a "club" while at the same time pointing finger to the ceiling. Or "run the clubs". Or "finesse" when there is AQ in dummy. Of course none of these is the right way to call for a card from dummy but the intention in all these examples is clear.

or "The curse of scotland" and "The beer card" when playing diamonds. Or, "spade" while pointing vigourously at the ace of clubs.

[iviehoff]

In these cases, there is no prospect of a change under L46. But read L45C4b, which is the counterpart to L25A, which appears to give declarer a better chance, since the test of "different intention is incontrovertible " is absent in this law. For this law to apply, declarer would have to be able to argue truthfully that while he thought the word "Ace", the word "Queen" formed on his lips without his realising. Such things do happen - in a completely different circumstance last night I said one thing while thinking I was saying another, and if there had been only one person listening I would have sworn that he misheard rather than that I misspoke. Directors differ in their willingness to admit a change under L45C4b in such circumstances. But if declarer did indeed realise what he was saying at the moment he said it, then this law is no help to him, and indeed he did make a foolish error in the heat of the moment.

[bluejak]

jules101, on Sep 28 2010, 03:09 AM, said:

Part way through playing hand declarer calls for low C from dummy when his holdings are:

♣AJT
♣Q

Declarer's RHO plays the K. 

As the K is being played, declarer realises what he's done, and says he called for the wrong card and this was "mechanical error".  He states his intention was to call for the Ace.

We can all see it would indeed be a silly play (and the setting trick), it was what declarer would have planned.

a]  may declarer change the card called for?
b] does it make any difference when his LHO has played to the trick?
c] may declarer ask his RHO to accept this is a "mechanical error"?
d] if RHO is persuaded by declarer that dummy's card may be retracted may the other defender object?

a] First, let me ask what you meant. Did he lead the queen, king from LHO, "club"? If so, then this is part of every simple TD course everywhere. He intended to play the small club and changed his mind when he saw the king. He may not change under Law 46B because he meant to play a small card when he said it, and he may not change under Law 45C4B because he intended the small card when he spoke. So, no, he may not change it.

b} If you mean whether he played before or after the designation, then no. Before, and he changed his mind but not quick enough. After, and if declarer is going to play out of turn why should he get sympathy?

c] Of course not. RHO is not the TD. Call the TD and he decides.

c] Of course. RHO is not the TD. Call the TD and he decides.

[bluejak]

jules101, on Sep 28 2010, 03:09 AM, said:

Declarer has set up a long high spade card in dummy onto which she intends to throw a loser from hand. 

A lot of effort went into setting up the winner [lots of ruffing and crossing to dummy and ruffing, etc], and all can see declarer's intent. 

When in dummy for the last time, and with her winner established, declarer calls for "spade" (meaning to call for high spade, but as in case study 1 the declarer has had a momentary lapse).  The low spade played will lose the trick, so no discard opportunity (this is the setting trick).

As in case study 1 all at table can see this would be a silly play, and that on her last "visit" to dummy (and after all that effort) it had been declarer's intention to call for the higher card.

May declarer:

a] immediately change her call?

b] does it make any difference if the next hand has played a card or not?

Yes, this is a typical Law 46B case. Players often say "spade" when they think it obvious they mean "high spade". Dummy normally reacts by playing the card they mean rather than the card called for, and the TD will usually allow it if called.

But it is not certain. The TD has to judge what was intended. If he thinks that declarer thought all the spades were good and did not care which one was played, he will not allow a change. So it is a judgement decision.

Interestingly enough, you ask a different question, where declarer tries to change her call: that is a different Law, 45C4B. But if she does not make any attempt to change her call, but argues that she meant the top one anyway, that is Law 46B and will usually be accepted by the TD.

a] An immediate change under Law 45C4B would probably be allowed as well, under the presumption that the failure to say "top" was unintended.

b] Such a change is permitted even if the next player has played.

[jules101]

Case Study 1

Just to clarify - as requested.

a] Declarer was in dummy and asked clearly for small/low club.

There is no dubiety about which card was asked for and was played.


Declarer realised his error almost instantly, but both dummy had played the card requested, and declarer's RHO had also played the K.


b] Sorry I got declarer's RHO and LHO mixed up. Now corrected in original post.

Low ♣ called for, and next hand (declarer's RHO) played K♣.

[bluejak]

Thanks for the clarification. But there is no evidence that he did not mean to play a small club which might be logical - if he was trying to set up two tricks quickly, for example - so I would not say declarer's different intention is incontrovertible.

He might be able to persuade the TD under Law 45C4B.

My remarks c] and d] stand unchanged.

[jules101]

I omitted to say declarer was in 4♠ and the defence had scored 3 tricks at this point.

[bluejak]

That strengthens his case under Law 45C4B but not really under Law 46B.

The difference is as follows:

• If you call for the wrong card by mistake that is a Law 45C4B matter.
  
• If you call for the right card in the wrong way that is a Law 46B matter.
  
• If you change your mind you have no chance whatever.

[Phil]

As a director, this 'incontrovertible' phrase gives me heartburn.

Bluejak said:

...this is a typical Law 46B case. Players often say "spade" when they think it obvious they mean "high spade". Dummy normally reacts by playing the card they mean rather than the card called for, and the TD will usually allow it if called.

I imagine it was created when some player at some point was looking at ♠AQJ in dummy and played from his hand. The K unexpectedly appeared on his left and he called "spade". He probably screamed bloody murder, "how can it 'ever' be right to play the J"!

If the spade suit were in declarer's hand and played the J under the King, is the a director in the world that would allow a declarer to replay his card?

I see no difference between a mental slip that involved the tongue, and one that involved the fingers.

So I'm interested in the rationale of why this is the Law.

[Vampyr]

Phil, on Sep 28 2010, 07:26 PM, said:

As a director, this 'incontrovertible' phrase gives me heartburn.

I imagine it was created when some player at some point was looking at ♠AQJ in dummy and played from his hand. The K unexpectedly appeared on his left and he called "spade". He probably screamed bloody murder, "how can it 'ever' be right to play the J"!

This is a change of mind, though, and a change will not be allowed.

Quote

If the spade suit were in declarer's hand and played the J under the King, is the a director in the world that would allow a declarer to replay his card?

I see no difference between a mental slip that involved the tongue, and one that involved the fingers.

So I'm interested in the rationale of why this is the Law.

The Law does not allow for correction of "mental slips", which is why no change of card would be allowed in either case.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Sep 28 2010, 12:29 PM, said:

Players often say "spade" when they think it obvious they mean "high spade".  Dummy normally reacts by playing the card they mean rather than the card called for, and the TD will usually allow it if called.

I am sure that a PP for dummy is routine.

[bluejak]

I am quite sure a PP for dummy is not routine.

Whether we like it or not, people are very casual over some rules. While education helps, a large number of PPs does not seem the answer.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Sep 29 2010, 12:54 AM, said:

I am quite sure a PP for dummy is not routine.

I know that really. But one of the things that most annoys me is when dummy plays a card without declarer's calling one, or plays the "wrong" card after an incomplete designation, so I wish that this behaviour were penalised.

[jules101]

Thanks everyone for their helpful comments.

I think I understand now. Good job this was a "simple ruling" question.

Have I got this right? If so I'll print out and staple to my rule book!


A] If declarer calls for a SPECIFIC card (eg JS, low S, high S) then this card MUST be played (Law 45C4B).

She MAY NOT change under Law 46B because when she called for a specific card she meant to play when she called for it.

She MAY NOT change the card under Law 45C4B even if she had really intended to call for a different card.


B] If declarer calls for the right card in the wrong way (eg spade, instead of highest S, AS etc) then the director MAY allow declarer to change her call if persuaded that she intended to play another card (eg top) (Law 46B, "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible").

The TD has to judge what was intended (and may allow or decline a change of card).

Such a change may be permitted even if the next player has played.

An immediate change under Law 45C4B would probably be allowed, if for instance declarer's failure to state "top spade" rather than "spade" was unintended.


C] If declarer calls for a card and changes her mind, no change of card is allowed.

[iviehoff]

jules101, on Sep 30 2010, 02:39 PM, said:

A] If declarer calls for a SPECIFIC card (eg JS, low S, high S) then this card MUST be played (Law 45C4B).

She MAY NOT change under Law 46B because when she called for a specific card she meant to play when she called for it.

She MAY NOT change the card under Law 45C4B even if she had really intended to call for a different card.

No. In principle 45C4B may give relief in this situation. In essence, it only applies if the words that came out of your mouth were an unconscious "mis-speak" - you did not realise that is what you were saying at the moment you said it. Now some directors are prepared to believe that this might have happened, and if the circumstances sound plausible, would in principle allow the change. Others deny it could ever be shown to a sufficient level of crebility and would never allow it. I've never actually seen it happen.

[gordontd]

iviehoff, on Sep 30 2010, 03:50 PM, said:

In principle 45C4B may give relief in this situation. In essence, it only applies if the words that came out of your mouth were an unconscious "mis-speak" - you did not realise that is what you were saying at the moment you said it. 

That's correct.

Quote

Now some directors are prepared to believe that this might have happened, and if the circumstances sound plausible, would in principle allow the change. Others deny it could ever be shown to a sufficient level of crebility and would never allow it.

I think they are wrong. The fact that the law exists means there must be circumstances in which it applies.

Quote

I've never actually seen it happen.

I have - I once called "diamond" when I meant "club" because I had a migraine coming on. Eventually the director accepted it and allowed the correction.