[lalldonn]

ACBL

1C = Precision, 16+ artificial, 3H = Spades and a minor (like Michaels), 4C = Pass or correct for partner's minor

---

Trick 1: High heart lead
Trick 2: Trump switch, won by the jack in dummy
Trick 3: Spade finesse
Trick 4: Ace of spades, throwing a heart
Trick 5: Heart ruff in dummy
Trick 6: Club ruff in hand
Reaching this position, with 5 tricks in for NS and 1 trick in for EW

---

Declarer leads a spade, and east thinks for maybe 15 seconds and ruffs with the diamond ten. Declarer says "diamond", and as dummy is moving to play the diamond declarer says "wait I mean club". East calls the director to get it worked out.

1. My thoughts are that whether declarer can be allowed to play a club depends on why he said diamond. If it's because he missed east's card then he is trying to change his mind which is not allowed. But if it's because he always meant to say club but his mind simply stated the word for what he was looking at (east's card) then he hasn't changed his mind, he meant to call a club all along so he should be allowed to do what he intended. Is all that accurate?
2. If I'm correct in 1, how does the director go about determining which it is? What if east and north disagree on the reason 'diamond' was said (with south and west having no opinion)?
3. Does it matter how long east took to make his play? Ie, is there a "sominex proviso"? Obviously there is no such term in the laws, I just wonder whether it's a relevant factor in determining declarer's intentions.
4. Does it matter if declarer was pointing at a club when he said diamond? What if south says he saw that north was looking at a club when he said diamond?
5. Is there anything else relevant, either missing information or another possible factor that could matter?

[barmar]

1. I think you're correct.

2. He asks North what was going on in his mind. I don't think East really has anything to say on this -- he can't know what was in North's head. East may have suspicions, but I'm sure the TD suspects the same thing.

3. The TD should consider as much evidence as he can when trying to sort out declarer's intent.

4. I think the gesture would be evidence of what was in his mind.

5. I'd ask about the tempo of declarer's designation. If he called for the trump quickly, it's likely that it was in his mind to ruff.

I think the evidence that he miscalled rather than misthought would have to be pretty strong. Most of us have been in situations like this, and if we're honest with ourselves we know that we didn't notice that LHO ruffed in front of dummy, and went through with our original plan too quickly.

[AlexJonson]

I'll enjoy an argument that persuades me to rule other than card designated was not inadvertent.

[ahydra]

AlexJonson, on 2012-March-17, 14:20, said:

I'll enjoy an argument that persuades me to rule other than card designated was not inadvertent.

Too many negatives for my poor brain. Are you convinced the card designated was, or was not, inadvertent?

ahydra

[AlexJonson]

ahydra, on 2012-March-17, 14:41, said:

Too many negatives for my poor brain. Are you convinced the card designated was, or was not, inadvertent?

ahydra

Try harder.

[barmar]

I'll give it a try.

"not inadvertent" = "intended"
"other than ... intended" = "unintended"

So he meant "I'll enjoy an argument that persuades me to rule that the card designated was unintended."

I'm not really sure what he meant by "enjoy an argument". Does he mean he'd be happy to be persuaded by it, or he'd like to debate it?

[bluejak]

lalldonn, on 2012-March-17, 10:41, said:

Declarer leads a spade, and east thinks for maybe 15 seconds and ruffs with the diamond ten. Declarer says "diamond", and as dummy is moving to play the diamond declarer says "wait I mean club". East calls the director to get it worked out.

This is on every TD course ever. We know he changed his mind when he say the ♦T so we do not allow a change.

AlexJonson, on 2012-March-17, 14:20, said:

I'll enjoy an argument that persuades me to rule other than card designated was not inadvertent.

We know it was not inadvertent so why rule it as inadvertent?