Retraction of card played

West leads Club Q.

Dummy has A x and South, Declarer, has K 10 x. West immaterial.

Declarer calls for the 'Ace' and at his turn plays the King. Immediately 'oops, that was not what I was going to play'. Director please.

Declarer maintains that this was a slip of the finger and asks to be allowed to replace the King with the small card. He argues that it is similar to an unintended designation of card to be played from dummy, which is allowed to be changed.

Law 47 does not allow retraction of card played from hand even if it was (obviously) unintended. Therefore he cannot replace the played card.

???

Comments

  • You are correct. Different standards apply to designating a card in dummy, playing a card from hand, and making a bid, so what is allowed in one case does not necessarily apply in another.

    "Slip of the tongue" has finally been introduced into the laws after many decades of being used by players, but "slip of the finger" is a new one!

  • If this is a mechanical error, then it can be corrected, no?

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    You are correct. Different standards apply to designating a card in dummy, playing a card from hand, and making a bid, so what is allowed in one case does not necessarily apply in another.

    "Slip of the tongue" has finally been introduced into the laws after many decades of being used by players, but "slip of the finger" is a new one!

    'Slip of the finger' excuse as applied to bidding box being used by the player to explain the unintended card played!!

    My argument was that declarer (or defender, for that matter) playing a card from hand has the time and opportunity to look at the card that he has taken out, pause and make up his mind that that is the card that he really intends to play before he actually plays the card. That is, he has the opportunity to change his mind and play another card. If he fails to use this opportunity that is his problem. If I may put it, the standards are not different, they all allow for change of unintended action, only the processes are different.

  • @Martin said:
    If this is a mechanical error, then it can be corrected, no?

    No. "Mechanical error" ONLY applies to the use of a bidding box.

  • Law 45C2 is the relevant one:

    1. Declarer is deemed to have played 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

    It sounds from the OP (opening post) that the king was played

    Barrie Partridge - Senior Kibitzer in Bridge Club Live - Pig Trader in IBLF

  • @Senior_Kibitzer said:
    Law 45C2 is the relevant one:

    1. Declarer is deemed to have played 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

    It sounds from the OP (opening post) that the king was played

    Yes, the king was played as described in the Law, whether by mechanical error, lapse of concentration, whatever.
    It could even be the case that declarer had intended to play low from dummy and win the trick in hand with the king, called for the ace from dummy by mistake and played the king from hand before noticing his mistake.

    I am glad to have received confirmation of my understanding.

  • We've all done it and will likely do it again. You just have to accept the loss of a precious high-card and keep going.

Sign In or Register to comment.