[JohnLW]

"A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error.
Footnote to Law 25A (Dec 2011)"

Can the same interpretation be placed on an unintended lead?

Example Declarer is running dummy's long Diamonds. He is about to lead the ten but out of his lips appear the words "ten of hearts" (which, unhappily, is also in Dummy). The gasps around the table (including from dummy) make him realise his 'slip of the tongue'.
Assuming the Director is happy that the play was unintended can it be changed under 45C 4 b?

[VixTD]

The footnote was added to cover the situation in which an action which would normally constitute unauthorized information (e.g. partner's alert or announcement) helps the player realise they have not made the bid they intended to make. I don't suppose the lawmakers envisaged such a situation applying to the call of a card from dummy. Alerts and announcements are part of normal procedure. Gasps of surprise from the other players are not.

However, the basic rule is still the same: declarer may change an unintended call for a card from dummy without penalty so long as they haven't subsequently played from hand. I would have no problem if shocked expressions of the opponents alerted declarer to this. An exclamation from dummy is a different matter. This is dummy interfering in the play.

The director would have to be satisfied the call really was unintended. If dummy were the first to react (or the only one to react) I don't think I'd allow the change as there must be some doubt that declarer would have noticed before it was too late. I might also penalise dummy for interfering with play.

[jallerton]

VixTD, on 2013-September-25, 11:24, said:

The footnote was added to cover the situation in which an action which would normally constitute unauthorized information (e.g. partner's alert or announcement) helps the player realise they have not made the bid they intended to make. I don't suppose the lawmakers envisaged such a situation applying to the call of a card from dummy. Alerts and announcements are part of normal procedure. Gasps of surprise from the other players are not.

Not quite. The footnote was added after it was pointed out to the EBU L&E, who subsequently brought it to the attention of the WBFLC, that it would be a breach of Law 73C for a player to exercise an option to change an unintended call under Law 25A if an alert or anouncement by the player's partner was the only reason why the player realised his error in time. Unfortunately, the wording of the footnote does not really address the issue, as there is still nothing in either Law 25A or the new footnote to say that Law 73C does not apply.

Still, if the wording in the footnote "no matter how he may become aware of his error" is intended to mean "please pretend that Law 73C did not exist" then it is equally legal to correct an unintended call if woken up by partner's gasps of surprise as it is if woken up by partner's alert.

The analogy with Law 45C4b is a good one. I agree with VixTD that dummy is interfering with play, but maybe the declarer has to be allowed to change his card and then after the hand the TD is required to assess rectification and/or penalty for dummy's breach of Law 43A1c.

[lamford]

JohnLW, on 2013-September-25, 10:20, said:

The gasps around the table (including from dummy) make him realise his 'slip of the tongue'.
Assuming the Director is happy that the play was unintended can it be changed under 45C 4 b?

It sounds like there was "pause for thought" here, but what this is, and when it starts, is a matter of interpretation.

[nige1]

If instead of gasping with surprise, dummy says "Surely you mean ♦T not ♥T", does this footnote mean that declarer is still allowed change his designation? Bridge would be simpler and fairer, if "mechanical-error" rules were scrapped

[VixTD]

jallerton, on 2013-September-25, 12:48, said:

Not quite. The footnote was added after it was pointed out to the EBU L&E, who subsequently brought it to the attention of the WBFLC, that it would be a breach of Law 73C for a player to exercise an option to change an unintended call under Law 25A if an alert or anouncement by the player's partner was the only reason why the player realised his error in time. Unfortunately, the wording of the footnote does not really address the issue, as there is still nothing in either Law 25A or the new footnote to say that Law 73C does not apply.

Still, if the wording in the footnote "no matter how he may become aware of his error" is intended to mean "please pretend that Law 73C did not exist" then it is equally legal to correct an unintended call if woken up by partner's gasps of surprise as it is if woken up by partner's alert.

The analogy with Law 45C4b is a good one. I agree with VixTD that dummy is interfering with play, but maybe the declarer has to be allowed to change his card and then after the hand the TD is required to assess rectification and/or penalty for dummy's breach of Law 43A1c.

Yes, I didn't mean that an unintended call that offender was alerted to by the action of partner could only be changed if the action were part of correct procedure, and you may be right that the same principle applies to changes of play from dummy.

If dummy illegally points out that a defender has revoked, for instance, then I think the TD should allow the revoke to be corrected (because of law 81C, below) and then adjust the score to remove the effect of any resulting damage. Maybe this is a similar situation. It seems a rather clumsy way of dealing with it, though.

Quote

[81C] The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:....to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner.....

[Vampyr]

I am confused about the references to a footnote. Law 46 has no footnote in my copy of the Laws and the one in Law 45 does not seem to apply. Can someone enlighten me?

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-26, 18:12, said:

I am confused about the references to a footnote. Law 46 has no footnote in my copy of the Laws and the one in Law 45 does not seem to apply. Can someone enlighten me?

If you look at the original post you'll see that he's talking about the footnote to Law 25A.