[BudH]

Declarer holds a spade void and goes to dummy to use an ♠AKQJ2 suit to discard losers. He verbally calls "spade", RHO plays the ♠3, and declarer discards a loser. Declarer then says "top spade" but defenders say "we won the trick - you played dummy's small spade, not an honor". Ruling? Can declarer correct the ♠2 which was not intended to a spade honor?

Presumably, Law 46B applies regarding "different intention is incontrovertible" and not Law 45C4(b) which would prevent correction since declarer subsequently played from his hand via "until he next plays a card from either his own hand or from dummy".

QUESTION 1: Up to what point can dummy's ♠2 be corrected to a spade honor via Law 46B?

QUESTION 2: Can someone give any example of when Law 45C4(b) would apply instead of Law 46B?


Law 45C4(b):
Declarer may correct an unintended designation of a card from dummy until he next plays a card from either his own hand or from dummy. A change of designation may be allowed after a slip of the tongue, but not after a loss of concentration or a reconsideration of action..."

Law 46B:
"In the case of an incomplete or invalid designation, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible)..."

[PeterAlan]

You don't say whether dummy has 'pick[ed] up' any spade 'card and face[d] it on the table' (Law 45B: Play of Card from Dummy). Has anything been played before RHO's ♠3?


.

[BudH]

PeterAlan, on 2023-September-01, 10:44, said:

You don't say whether dummy has 'pick[ed] up' any spade 'card and face[d] it on the table' (Law 45B: Play of Card from Dummy). Has anything been played before RHO's ♠3?


.

"RHO plays the ♠3, and declarer discards a loser. Declarer then says "top spade" but defenders say "we won the trick - you played dummy's small spade, not an honor". Ruling? Can declarer correct the ♠2 which was not intended to a spade honor?"

All four players played to the trick beginning with a spade from dummy, ♠3 from declarer's RHO, discard from declarer, and some spade higher than the ♠3 from declarer's LHO. Dummy assumed to have picked up the ♠2 as the called card. Then declarer verbally calls for a spade honor when LHO thinks he has won the trick.

[pescetom]

I fail to understand why you presume Law 46B applies regarding "different intention is incontrovertible" and not Law 45C4(b) which would prevent correction since declarer subsequently played from his hand via "until he next plays a card from either his own hand or from dummy".
IMO the latter should have precedence because it is more general (if the player was merely guilty of suffering from a distraction in expressing his intention he would not play from hand ignoring the fact that dummy played a card he did not intend).
I think Law 46B is a disgrace in the first place and see no reason to bend over backwards in such cases.

[blackshoe]

Law 46A is fine. The problem is that 46B panders to the thousands of players who can't seem to follow 46A, as simple as it is.

[sanst]

BudH, on 2023-September-01, 06:48, said:

QUESTION 2: Can someone give any example of when Law 45C4(b) would apply instead of Law 46B?

I’ve read an example where this law was applied. It was in Germany where a foreign, probably Dutch, player mixed up ‘Coeur’ (hearts) and ‘Karo’ (diamonds) and was allowed to change the played card from the dummy. Maybe you think that Dutch an German are almost the same, but they are not, certainly not in this case. Hearts are ‘harten’ in Dutch, diamonds ‘ruiten’.
In the case you give I don’t read anything in the Laws that would allow the change of the cards played in the previous trick. Besides, the declarer has led in the next trick, although out of turn.

[mycroft]

I have an issue. It happens about once a year, but I mix up the black suits.

Thankfully, either I have pointed to the card I wanted, or heard myself misspeak and "no, no, other clu - spade!" and it was obvious to all and everyone believed it was a misspeak, not a misthink.

I guess there have been a couple of times where I thought "ah, not sure it's obvious enough" and let it slide. Might even have not been obvious enough to me. And I am known for "diamond - well, yeah, I said it" when I was one trick ahead of myself and therefore go down in a cold game. So players who know me are more likely to believe me when I claim a misspeak.

I have seen the latest examples of "incontrovertible" passed in the ACBL (no, I can't find them at the moment. Probably should, for my own review). In my own personal opinion, they are at least one level more lenient than I would prefer to be; "the intent is clear" covering cases that could easily have been "a trick ahead of myself". Of course, I follow their guidance as a director (and mine as a player; yep, that's another place where directors sometimes just get to suck it up).

But I wish the "yeah, that was a mistake" would be honoured more than it is, and people wouldn't fight for "I would never have done that" (if I was thinking. Of course, it's only a club game, so I maybe wasn't paying the attention I would have in the finals of bracket 1) in their 3-times-a-week, .8MP to win club game. Same with claims, and what was "obvious" without the UI.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2023-September-02, 01:35, said:

I’ve read an example where this law was applied. It was in Germany where a foreign, probably Dutch, player mixed up ‘Coeur’ (hearts) and ‘Karo’ (diamonds) and was allowed to change the played card from the dummy. Maybe you think that Dutch an German are almost the same, but they are not, certainly not in this case. Hearts are ‘harten’ in Dutch, diamonds ‘ruiten’.

Even with just one language and culture there are also similar sounding syllables - it is easy to confuse "tre" (3) and "Re" (King) in Italian and just possible to confuse eight and Ace in English. Less likely to cause dummy real confusion, but it can happen. Of course much worse things can and do happen, like the Declarer calling "Ace" and dummy asking "Queen?"

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2023-September-09, 09:42, said:

Less likely to cause dummy real confusion, but it can happen. Of course much worse things can and do happen, like the Declarer calling "Ace" and dummy asking "Queen?"

"Carreau et sous-coupe", par example?

[mycroft]

Long long time ago, I learned: "top diamond" and "eight-spot". Even if it *isn't* A8.