[Xiaolongnu]

Local club game at a not so strong field, essentially a social game at a private club.

Declarer calls a card from dummy, for example, small heart, RHO covers, declarer plays the small from hand, then immediately wants to change to the ace claiming that he pulled out the wrong card. When could he change and when could he not? Which laws apply or do not apply among the 45 to 48 range?

I was not directing but the Director is not very well versed so I helped him with the ruling. I temporarized saying that the manner of playing matters, then eventually decided that it was more likely intended than not. What is the correct ruling and what are some ways that I could judge whatever I need to judge? This problem actually happens very often so I suppose there should be a canonical way to deal with it.

Is there "unintended play" in the first place? I do not think so.

[pran]

Xiaolongnu, on 2012-March-08, 01:14, said:

Local club game at a not so strong field, essentially a social game at a private club.

Declarer calls a card from dummy, for example, small heart, RHO covers, declarer plays the small from hand, then immediately wants to change to the ace claiming that he pulled out the wrong card. When could he change and when could he not? Which laws apply or do not apply among the 45 to 48 range?

I was not directing but the Director is not very well versed so I helped him with the ruling. I temporarized saying that the manner of playing matters, then eventually decided that it was more likely intended than not. What is the correct ruling and what are some ways that I could judge whatever I need to judge? This problem actually happens very often so I suppose there should be a canonical way to deal with it.

Is there "unintended play" in the first place? I do not think so.

Your description is clearly that of a play that was intended at the moment declarer did it. The fact that he immediately discovered his mistake doesn't allow him to change his mind and play another card instead.

[gordontd]

Xiaolongnu, on 2012-March-08, 01:14, said:

Is there "unintended play" in the first place? I do not think so.

Intention does not matter in this case, and it's simply a matter of whether or not the card has been played, so L45C2 applies.

[iviehoff]

L45C2, L47F2 and L48A are the ones that matter. They say:

45C2 Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is
(a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or
(b) maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played.

47F2 Except as this Law specifies, a card once played may not be withdrawn.

48A Declarer is not subject to restriction for exposing a card (but see Law
45C2), and no card of declarer’s or dummy’s hand ever becomes a penalty
card. Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally.

The word "unintended" is only used in the laws in connection with the words "call" and "designation", not "play". We should also be careful with the meaning of the word - it is used colloquially in a broader sense than the laws of bridge use it. The laws of bridge do not specifically tell us about "unintended play", though clearly both words have a legal meaning, and we can say what it means within the laws of bridge.

"Unintended" is not one of the reasons in L47 for permitting the withdrawal of a played card. So, if you actually played it, it must remain played, "unintended" or otherwise, by L47F2. Nevertheless, there may a question in this case over whether you actually played it, in the legal sense.

As L48A says quite explicitly, if you drop it accidentally, you are not required to play it. By implication, a card that is dropped is not played in the sense of 45C2. A card that declarer removes from his hand thinking to play it, but not having gone so far as to play it within the sense of L45C2, need not be played, even if one or both defenders have seen its face. Though the precise boundary between played and not played is not objectively discernable: in rare cases that declarer puts himself in that twilight zone director will have to make a judgment. But this doesn't happen often.

In the present case, declarer clearly must play the card by L45C2. He did precisely what he would do to play a card, except that he may have held in his hand a card different from the one he intended. Whether the card he played was intended in the sense of the laws - ie, as he moved the card he held in his hand the card he thought he held - or unintended in the sense of the laws - ie, he held in his hand a different card from what he thought - he nevertheless played it, because the consideration of whether it is intended or unintended is not relevant to L45C2.

(Edit) For completeness, it may need to be pointed out that physically playing a card from hand is not a "designation", so it is not capable of being an "unintended designation" that can be withdrawn. "Designation" is what a player does when he says or otherwise communicates what card he desires to play, typically by naming it, as opposed to physically playing it. Play by designation occurs almost exclusively in relation to declarer indicating what card he desires to play from dummy, and is defined as the proper procedure for playing from dummy. Designation is not the proper procedure for playing from any of the othe three hands, although the law does provide for what must happen in the case of designations of cards to be played from the other three hands - but this is a rare occurrence in practice.

This post has been edited by iviehoff: 2012-March-08, 10:38

[Xiaolongnu]

So when declarer claims to have dropped a card, is it "played" because it has physically been played under the definition of being maintained in a way that it is played, or is it "not played" because it is a mechanical mistake of pulling out the wrong card, which seems more similar to dropping the card by accident then?

[gordontd]

I can't recall an instance when I couldn't tell the difference between a player dropping a card accidentally or playing one deliberately.

[bluejak]

When a card is dropped it has not been maintained in any way.

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2012-March-09, 04:51, said:

I can't recall an instance when I couldn't tell the difference between a player dropping a card accidentally or playing one deliberately.

I encountered such an instance a few days ago (or I couldn't tell the difference, anyway). Declarer started to play a card from his hand, realised it wasn't the card he'd intended to play, tried to put it back in his hand, and in doing so dropped it. That looked very much like an attempt to play the card.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2012-March-09, 07:30, said:

I encountered such an instance a few days ago (or I couldn't tell the difference, anyway). Declarer started to play a card from his hand, realised it wasn't the card he'd intended to play, tried to put it back in his hand, and in doing so dropped it. That looked very much like an attempt to play the card.

The way you describe it, it would have looked like a card being dropped to me.

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2012-March-09, 08:20, said:

gnasher, on 2012-March-09, 07:30, said:

I encountered such an instance a few days ago (or I couldn't tell the difference, anyway). Declarer started to play a card from his hand, realised it wasn't the card he'd intended to play, tried to put it back in his hand, and in doing so dropped it. That looked very much like an attempt to play the card.

The way you describe it, it would have looked like a card being dropped to me.

I agree, but that is because we are told, as facts, what went on in declarer's head: that declarer realised he didn't intend to play the card and that he tried to put it back in his hand.

A bystander (e.g. a TD) observing this would not have this information. Therefore, I could easily imagine that he would say:

gnasher, on 2012-March-09, 07:30, said:

That looked very much like an attempt to play the card.

I must add, though, that usually the TD is not present at the table when it happens and when the TD arrives he will ask declarer to repeat what he did. I guess it will be quite difficult for declarer to reproduce his action with decent accuracy.

Rik

[Phil]

gnasher, on 2012-March-09, 07:30, said:

I encountered such an instance a few days ago (or I couldn't tell the difference, anyway). Declarer started to play a card from his hand, realised it wasn't the card he'd intended to play, tried to put it back in his hand, and in doing so dropped it. That looked very much like an attempt to play the card.

I agree. I have one partner that will sometimes detach a card from his hand and it hovers about 3" from the felt (seen by everyone) and then it goes back in his hand.

What happens if his LHO plays?

[mycroft]

Phil: if he's a defender (L45C1), it's played if partner can see it, whether or not LHO plays. If he's declarer, if it's seen by everyone (including dummy) and stationary, I would be tempted to rule "maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played" (L45C2b). This isn't the (idiotic, but legal) trick of tower-of-babeling the card for 5 seconds, and then putting it back or letting it topple down.

I would recommend that this habit be broken before it has to be broken in the face of repeated L45C2b rulings :-)

[barmar]

Depending on the exact motions, it may or may not be easy to tell the difference between a card falling while you're fumbling trying to put it back in your hand, or declarer starting to put it back in his hand and changing his mind again to play it.

Quote

I agree. I have one partner that will sometimes detach a card from his hand and it hovers about 3" from the felt (seen by everyone) and then it goes back in his hand.
What happens if his LHO plays?

I think it depends on whether he held it near the table long enough to meet the criteria "maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played."

If not, LHO's has erroneously exposed a card. Law 49 applies, so it becomes a major penalty card.

[bluejak]

All the descriptions in the last few posts seem to be easy to rule. But so what? Will there be borderline cases? Of course, and whatever the rule is there will be borderline cases. Just make a decision and get on with life.