[UdcaDenny]

In my bridgeclub in Chiang Mai, Thailand they interpret some bridgelaws very wrong I think.
If a player puts down a card and discover it was a mistake he can change the played card
even when next player already have played his/her card. They refer to Law 41 and call it
a mechanical error. When I play in my homecountry Sweden a played card is always a played
card and cannot be changed. Only exception is if you are declarer and pick it up direct before
next opponent have played his/her card. I even mailed some tournament directors who direct
worldcup play but some players in my club still insist they are right.
Some comments about this please.

[gordontd]

My main comment would be that we've been through all this here several times before and it's clear the club has no interest in doing things properly, so I'm not sure why you have brought it up again.

The second thing I would say is that the practice you describe and attribute to your home country is not correct either.

[blackshoe]

Law 47 deals with retraction of played cards. There are a number of parts to this law, ending with Law 47F2: "Except as this law specifies, a card once played may not be withdrawn."

For Thailand: "mechanical error" is not a reason given in Law 47, so it is not legal to allow it (see 47F2 quoted above). For Sweden: There are some circumstances in which a played card can be retracted, so 47F2 not withstanding, to disallow retraction in such cases is illegal.

"some players in my club still insist they are right"

"Show me in the law book where it says what you're claiming it says."

That said, at some point the director has to say "you're wrong, now shut up about it". Politely, of course.

[barmar]

UdcaDenny, on 2016-April-24, 08:10, said:

They refer to Law 41 and call it a mechanical error.

Are you sure that's the law yuo mean? There's nothing in Law 41 about mechanical errors, it's about what happens between the face-down opening lead and spreading dummy.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-24, 10:31, said:

For Sweden: There are some circumstances in which a played card can be retracted, so 47F2 not withstanding, to disallow retraction in such cases is illegal.

What circumstances? I cannot imagine any that do not involve a revoke by one side or the other, or a defender playing before his partner has played in turn. The OP implies that this practice takes place when a legal card is played to a normal trick. This is, of course, illegal.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-24, 16:16, said:

What circumstances? I cannot imagine any that do not involve a revoke by one side or the other, or a defender playing before his partner has played in turn. The OP implies that this practice takes place when a legal card is played to a normal trick. This is, of course, illegal.

He may be confusing a card dropped rather than played.

[blackshoe]

I'm not confusing anything. I was referring to the circumstances specified in Law 47, among others.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2016-April-24, 16:19, said:

He may be confusing a card dropped rather than played.

Maybe. But usually when a card is dropped it is dropped in the course of playing another card. It would be surprising if the OP told us this practice But forgot to mention that it usually involved two of declarer's cards on the table.

[UdcaDenny]

To clarify what happened and maybe I brought up this subject earlier and also it probably was law 47, not 41.
Anyway I led a low ♠ against 3NT and my P played the 7 that declarer covered with 8. Then he picked up his card
and played the 10 instead. Offcource the declarer protested but he refered to the rule and claimed it was a mechanical
error. He didnt drop the card so thats how they rule in my Thailand bridgeclub.

[lamford]

UdcaDenny, on 2016-April-25, 02:46, said:

To clarify what happened and maybe I brought up this subject earlier and also it probably was law 47, not 41.
Anyway I led a low ♠ against 3NT and my P played the 7 that declarer covered with 8. Then he picked up his card
and played the 10 instead. Offcource the declarer protested but he refered to the rule and claimed it was a mechanical
error. He didnt drop the card so thats how they rule in my Thailand bridgeclub.

They do seem to rule as they want in Thailand. In more ways than one:
http://www.telegraph...bling-raid.html

[pran]

lamford, on 2016-April-25, 04:09, said:

They do seem to rule as they want in Thailand. In more ways than one:
http://www.telegraph...bling-raid.html

A similar incident happened 80 years ago in a bridge club on Manhattan.
From The Bridge World - May 1936 Editorial:
On April 28 a squad of policemen broke up a Duplicate tournament in New York City and arrested the two young women, well known Bridge teachers, who were directing the contest. The charge was "keeping and maintaining and allowing their premises to be used for Contract Bridge gambling." At a hearing in a magistrate's court the next day, the case was referred to the Court of Special Sessions, the magistrate declaring that he could se no difference between such a contest and various "pin-ball" games which had been held to be illegal.

In the June 1936 issue we can read that the prosecuting attorney had not been able to find a single witness to take the stand against the game; that he had to call upon the witnesses for the defense, Ely Culbertson and Albert H Morehead to appear for the court as experts on the game of Bridge. They were after some questioning admitted as expert witnesses, and the eventual verdict of the court was that although there is an element of chance in Bridge like in most of life, Duplicate Bridge is predominantly a game of skill, not a game of chance. Consequently the defendants were acquitted.

[weejonnie]

OffT - the same thing happened in darts.

"In 1908, a pub owner from Leeds, Yorkshire, by the name of Foot Anakin was taken to court for allowing people to play darts in his establishment. He decided to challenge this ruling, and offered to prove that darts was not a "game of chance", but a “game of skill”. A dartboard was set up in court and Foot Anakin proved his skill by throwing 3 darts in the number 20. He then challenged any court official to do the same. One of the court clerks decided to take up the challenge and failed. The judge then ruled that darts was in fact a "game of skill" and dismissed the case. This ruling boosted the game even more, which led to more competitions in public houses."

Mind you - I like the following - mind you it sounds like an urban legend.

"Many interesting stories exist with regard to darts. One such story was about a game which originated in 1844 called "Puff and Dart". It seems that while some people were throwing the darts others tried to start a new type of game by using a blowpipe to blow the dart into the board. Apparently the game was quickly banned because a London dart blower made the mistake of sucking the blowpipe instead of blowing. The dart went into his digestive system, which caused him to die a few days later."

(dartsinfoword)

[blackshoe]

Isn't the Internet wonderful?

[UdcaDenny]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-25, 08:12, said:

Isn't the Internet wonderful?

Yes, its wonderful. Only thing I wanted to know if you can change a played card, yes or no, and people are talking about complete different things. I dont mind the stories but I would also like to hear yes or no since I thought of showing the result to my friends here in Chiang Mai.

[gordontd]

You started three threads on this topic last year and they were answered fully then. Why do you think anyone will pay any more attention if we say it again?

[ggwhiz]

Back to the fun.

Eric Murray defended a Toronto Bridge Club against a gaming house charge and told the judge "Bridge is gambling the way YOU play it but a game of skill the way I do" and immediately lost.

[blackshoe]

UdcaDenny, on 2016-April-26, 06:21, said:

Yes, its wonderful. Only thing I wanted to know if you can change a played card, yes or no, and people are talking about complete different things. I dont mind the stories but I would also like to hear yes or no since I thought of showing the result to my friends here in Chiang Mai.

No, you cannot change a played card on the basis that it was a "mechanical error". The conditions under which you can change a played card are defined in Law 47, mostly. Here's that law:

Quote

LAW 47 RETRACTION OF CARD PLAYED
A. In Course of Rectification
A card once played may be withdrawn when required by rectification following an irregularity (but a defender’s withdrawn card may become a penalty card, see Law 49).
B. To Correct an Illegal Play
A played card may be withdrawn to correct an illegal play. For defenders, except as this law provides, see Law 49 — penalty card. For simultaneous play, see Law 58.
C. To Change an Inadvertent Designation
A played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification after a change of designation permitted by Law 45C4(b).
D. Following an Opponent’s Change of Play
After an opponent’s change of play, a played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification and another card may be substituted. (Laws 16D and 62C2 may apply.)
E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation
1. A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in this circumstance.
2. (a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent’s call or play and before a corrected explanation without further rectification, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card.
(b) When it is too late to correct a play under 2(a) above, the Director may award an adjusted score.
F. Other Retraction
1. A card may be withdrawn as Law 53C provides.
2. Except as this law specifies, a card once played may not be withdrawn.

The emphasis in 47F2 is mine. Law 53C has to do with leads out of turn.

Show this to your directors and players.

[barmar]

Mechanical error is generally allowed as an explanation for an unintended call during the bidding, and Law 25 allows a change of call for this reason. Many players probably assume by analogy that there's a similar allowance for unintended plays, but there isn't. If a director has this misunderstanding, that's really bad.

[Vampyr]

So you have your answer. A played card may be retracted only after certain irregularities have taken place, and always, of course, with the director present.