Home» My NZB» Forums

Change of call of card in Dummy

Law 45C4(b)

Can anyone give an example of when Declarer would be able to change the designation of a card played in Dummy where the Director would be satisfied that the Declarer never intended to play that card.

Started by Ella Gray on 14 Jun 2023 at 03:55PM

Post a Comment

You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.

Latest Posts on this Thread

  1. NICK WHITTEN14 Jun 2023 at 08:45PM

    As I see it if declarer calls for a card which is completely irrational in a bridge sense

    For example declarer playing in hearts has two black singletons in own hand

    A spade is led and dummy has AK in the suit

    Thinks "yippee I can discard my club loser now"
    and calls for a CLUB

    I would allow that one to be changed  

  2. Ella Gray15 Jun 2023 at 07:00AM

    thanks nick, but would not that be a case of just follwing suit?

    I was thinking of:

    declarer is playing in hearts and has 2 losing clubs in dummy and also in their hand, singleton diamond in dummy and AKQ diamonds in hand and calls for a club from dummy (meaning to call for a diamond)

    Is this careless or allowable?

  3. NICK WHITTEN15 Jun 2023 at 05:30PM

    Yes I left a bit out
    I meant to say "after winning the first spade" declarer calls for a club
    which makes it essentially the same as your example

    Both think they can get rid of a club
    and "club" gets stuck in the brain so they absent-mindedly call for a club lead

    The essential part of the law is "(it may be changed) if declarer incontrovertably never intended to call for the card they did"

    That wording means the declarer never gets the benefit of the doubt

    An example of NOT being allowed to change would be
    declarer leads towards dummy and calls for the ace without noticing LH opponent has trumped it

    That fails the "never intended to call for that card" condition

    Also (deviating a little) if a card is played (rather than called for) in is never allowed to be changed (unless it is illegal of course)
    A number of people don't realise this

     

  4. GILES HANCOCK26 Jun 2023 at 05:19PM

     

    A Law hardly ever used, and I know some Directors who won't use it.

     

    I can imagine using it when Declarer points to one card and says a different card, especially if the play was obvious.

    Declarer is in 4S, cashes ace of diamonds, dummy is now void in diamonds, and Declarer plays a small diamond and says "ruff with a low heart please".

    Dummy has AKQJ of spades, 987 of hearts, and Declarer says "run the hearts".

    Dummy has AKQJT5 of spades and Declarer leads the 2 of spades and says "5".   I guess there could be a bridge reason to duck ...

     

    I've applied the law in online play when everyone agreed there was a misclick.

     

     

     

  5. Ella Gray27 Jun 2023 at 07:23AM

    thanks giles.  how would you rule on the example I gave in my original query.

  6. GILES HANCOCK27 Jun 2023 at 06:01PM

    I think I'd allow it to be changed to a diamond, but it's not really correct within the Law.

    (Personally if I was a defender I would just give them the last three tricks.)

  7. NICK WHITTEN28 Jun 2023 at 08:30AM

     

    The applicable law (45 C4 (b)) says "a change ... may be allowed after a slip of the tongue but not after a change of concentration"

    I would allow a change, but advise the opponents of the right to appeal 
    Let the appeal committee cogitate over the semantics

    If the opponents feel comfortable seeking an adjustment in this situation good luck to them smile

You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.
Our Sponsors
  • Tauranga City Council
  • TECT.jpg
✖