BBO Discussion Forums: Law 45C4(b) - correcting called card led to a trick - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Law 45C4(b) - correcting called card led to a trick

#1 User is offline   BudH 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 2004-April-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Bend, Indiana, USA
  • Interests:Operations Supervisor/Technical Advisor at nuclear power plant, soccer and basketball referee for more than 25 years; GLM; Ex-Head (Game) Director at South Bend (Indiana) Bridge Club; avid student of bridge law and game movements

Posted 2022-July-02, 09:28

In the "Oh sh@&!" ruling from the 1999 Vanderbilt, Joanna Stansby in a 6 club slam accidentally at trick 4 called "low spade" instead of "low club" in a position where she had 12 obvious tricks (and 13 when her RHO Dan Morse would have been squeezed in the majors. (See page 4 of http://web2.acbl.org...9spring/db8.pdf).

Morse grabbed the spade lead away from dummy's ace and gave Bobby Wolff a heart ruff for down 1. After the play was completed, the Director was called and later by a 3-2 margin, an appeals committee allowed the change of called card from dummy and changed the result to 6C making 6.

Under the 2017 law change for Law 45C4(b), declarer is not allowed a correction of dummy's called card if a play from dummy or declarer's hand thereafter is made.

Let's say this new law was applied to the case above. Pretend at trick 3 "low spade" was said instead of "low club", Morse plays the spade king and Stansby plays the club ace thinking she had called for a low club (never noticing the spade king play from RHO until later). As Wolff follows with a low spade, dummy asks of Stansby "no spades"? Stansby calls the director, saying she intended to call for a low club to draw trumps.

Would her ILLEGAL play of the club ace count as playing to the trick such that it would prevent her from correcting her verbal error via Law 45C4(b)?

(As a side comment, I disagree with this law change and makes it very likely that applying an allowed correction will nearly always happen when dummy plays third or fourth to a trick and seldom when playing first or second to a trick.)
0

#2 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,536
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2022-July-02, 11:06

Is there no secure link for this .pdf ?
Maybe you could quote page 4.
0

#3 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 791
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2022-July-02, 12:56

View PostBudH, on 2022-July-02, 09:28, said:

In the "Oh sh@&!" ruling from the 1999 Vanderbilt, Joanna Stansby in a 6 club slam accidentally at trick 3 called "low spade" instead of "low club" in a position where she had 12 obvious tricks (and 13 when her RHO Dan Morse would have been squeezed in the majors. (See page 4 of http://web2.acbl.org...9spring/db8.pdf).

Morse grabbed the spade lead away from dummy's ace and gave Bobby Wolff a heart ruff for down 1. After the play was completed, the Director was called and later by a 3-2 margin, an appeals committee allowed the change of called card from dummy and changed the result to 6C making 6.

Under the 2017 law change for Law 45C4(b), declarer is not allowed a correction of dummy's called card if a play from dummy or declarer's hand thereafter is made.

Let's say this new law was applied to the case above. Pretend at trick 3 "low spade" was said instead of "low club", Morse plays the spade king and Stansby plays the club ace thinking she had called for a low club (never noticing the spade king play from RHO until later). As Wolff follows with a low spade, dummy asks of Stansby "no spades"? Stansby calls the director, saying she intended to call for a low club to draw trumps.

Would her ILLEGAL play of the club ace count as playing to the trick such that it would prevent her from correcting her verbal error via Law 45C4(b)?

(As a side comment, I disagree with this law change and makes it very likely that applying an allowed correction will nearly always happen when dummy plays third or fourth to a trick and seldom when playing first or second to a trick.)


Yes - next: nothing in the law would save declarer.
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
0

#4 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,536
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2022-July-02, 14:41

View Postweejonnie, on 2022-July-02, 12:56, said:

Yes - next: nothing in the law would save declarer.


To evaluate that I need the details in the pdf... I do agree that nothing should.
You win a game by making the least mistakes, you say what you say, you do what you do, the consequences are consequences.
Laws that can be interpreted in any other sense are misguided, to say the least.
0

#5 User is offline   smerriman 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,029
  • Joined: 2014-March-15
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2022-July-02, 14:59

View Postpescetom, on 2022-July-02, 11:06, said:

Is there no secure link for this .pdf ?

The same URL with https instead? Accessing an http:// PDF isn't dangerous in any way though, unless you're concerned that someone may be able to find out you wanted to read the PDF, which you've already let slip by posting in this thread :)
0

#6 User is offline   BudH 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 2004-April-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Bend, Indiana, USA
  • Interests:Operations Supervisor/Technical Advisor at nuclear power plant, soccer and basketball referee for more than 25 years; GLM; Ex-Head (Game) Director at South Bend (Indiana) Bridge Club; avid student of bridge law and game movements

Posted 2022-July-02, 16:13

(1) H7 to HK, (2) D9 to DA and ruffed, (3) low club to CQ, (4) "low spade", SK, "oh sh&@ from declarer", (5) heart ruffed by East

0

#7 User is offline   BudH 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 2004-April-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Bend, Indiana, USA
  • Interests:Operations Supervisor/Technical Advisor at nuclear power plant, soccer and basketball referee for more than 25 years; GLM; Ex-Head (Game) Director at South Bend (Indiana) Bridge Club; avid student of bridge law and game movements

Posted 2022-July-02, 16:28

From page 4 of the associated ACBL daily bulletin:

"At the end of the hand, dummy suggested that the Director be called, as North had meant to call low club, and there could be some restitution. The Director was called, and after consultation with the other Directors, ruled under law 45C4(b) that North misspoke (a slip of the tongue).

Law 45C4(b) states in part: “A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought.” As the law allows an inadvertent card called from dummy to be withdrawn even if the next player has played to the trick, the Director ruled that the (apparently) inadvertent call could be withdrawn and replaced by the call she had intended. The contract was changed to 6 made six, plus 1370.

E/W appealed the Director’s ruling. E/W believed that the correction was not without pause for thought and that the Director had not been called until the hand had been completed.

The Committee first considered the evidence as to whether the call had been an error in play or an inadvertent (slip of tongue) call. Two significant points of evidence favored the slip of the tongue interpretation.

1. At this stage of play there were 12 top tricks. Declarer had no apparent reason to be playing a low spade at this time, but was virtually certain to be planning on drawing trumps.
2. When the K was played, the declarer appeared stunned and said “oh *****.” The Committee believed that those words would not be said by someone who had just found the K onside, but rather by someone who had just realized that the wrong suit had been played from dummy. The Committee therefore decided that the call of
“low spade” was inadvertent."
0

#8 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,536
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2022-July-03, 06:57

View Postsmerriman, on 2022-July-02, 14:59, said:

The same URL with https instead? Accessing an http:// PDF isn't dangerous in any way though, unless you're concerned that someone may be able to find out you wanted to read the PDF, which you've already let slip by posting in this thread :)

The browser on my phone refused to open the http link, but I eventually figured out how to insist, thanks anyway to you and to BudH for the quote.
0

#9 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,536
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2022-July-03, 08:57

Having read the ruling I find it frankly ridiculous, both in the acrobatics to get around the clearly written (if arguably misguided) law and in the insulting assumption that players of this level will not know the laws. I fully agree with the dissenting opinion of Bob Schwartz.


View PostBudH, on 2022-July-02, 09:28, said:



Under the 2017 law change for Law 45C4(b), declarer is not allowed a correction of dummy's called card if a play from dummy or declarer's hand thereafter is made.

Let's say this new law was applied to the case above. Pretend at trick 3 "low spade" was said instead of "low club", Morse plays the spade king and Stansby plays the club ace thinking she had called for a low club (never noticing the spade king play from RHO until later). As Wolff follows with a low spade, dummy asks of Stansby "no spades"? Stansby calls the director, saying she intended to call for a low club to draw trumps.

Would her ILLEGAL play of the club ace count as playing to the trick such that it would prevent her from correcting her verbal error via Law 45C4(b)?

(As a side comment, I disagree with this law change and makes it very likely that applying an allowed correction will nearly always happen when dummy plays third or fourth to a trick and seldom when playing first or second to a trick.)


I think the answer is yes, although I agree that the modification is not a great idea and should also be explicit on this issue.
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users