[lamford]

---

BAM (point-a-board), lead A♠; table result NS+620

Our friend SB was West from a second dispute here in Pula. West led a top spade on which East discouraged, and switched to the queen of diamonds. Declarer won in dummy and played a second spade. West won and played a second diamond, ruffed by South, who now cashed the jack of hearts and played another heart. It was point-a-board, so the overtrick was important. Dummy won the second heart perforce and cashed two spades throwing clubs, and then played the ace of clubs and called for a club, I think in Bulgarian. As dummy was reaching for the club, declarer corrected it to "diamond" maybe a second later. The TD was called and South stated that "club" was a slip of the tongue, and he meant "diamond". The TD, with no evidence either way, allowed the correction, and the contract was made for a flat board. A club would, of course, have been ruffed and East would exit with a heart for one down.

Do you agree with the TD's ruling. SB certainly did not.

[blackshoe]

TD does not have "no evidence", since declarer's statement that it was a slip of the tongue is evidence. One question is how much weight to give the statement. Another is whether the one second delay between "club" and "diamond" constitutes a pause for thought.

On the evidence presented, the ruling could go either way.

[1eyedjack]

My opinion's not worth squat but for the squat that it is worth I am with SB.

There is a lot of thought that can go on in the space of a second.
That said, the human's capacity to evaluate a second and then correctly articulate the delay (rather than just using the word "second" as a generic term for "a short period") is not very reliable.
There is it seems to me a logical reason why he might want to lead a Club.
In borderline cases I think that the burden of proof should go to the (potentially) offending side.
Had a club play been ridiculous I would be more inclined to side with declarer.

[pran]

I agree that this is a borderline case where the ruling can go either way.

But there is one item that makes me tend to rule against declarer:

Why did he play the ♣A at this time? I see no bridge reason for that at all.

Shouldn't he have played the ♦x for a ruff, then ♣ to the Ace, draw the remaining trumps and only thereafter play ♣ to the King?

This makes me strongly suspect that the call for the ♣9 was intentional (intending to take the rest on cross ruff) and not a misnomer, and that he indeed changed his mind.

Added: How did he get to dummy in order to pull the remaining trumps once the ♣A was gone before he ruffed his last diamond?

[1eyedjack]

Incidentally I think that the language issue is a red herring. A possible exception might be when the speaker is required to use a language that is not natural to him, so that the act of translation takes a second

[blackshoe]

1eyedjack, on 2013-September-14, 11:16, said:

In borderline cases I think that the burden of proof should go to the (potentially) offending side.

A lot of people say that, but there is no "burden of proof" in bridge.

I agree with Sven that the preponderance of the evidence tends to lean in favor of not allowing the change, and with Jack that the language issue is irrelevant, though if there's a regulation that says that calls and plays should be made in English, or some other not-Bulgarian language, I would caution declarer to follow it.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2013-September-14, 12:11, said:

Added: How did he get to dummy in order to pull the remaining trumps once the ♣A was gone before he ruffed his last diamond?

He played a top club which East ruffed, but that was still ten tricks.

[1eyedjack]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-14, 15:37, said:

A lot of people say that, but there is no "burden of proof" in bridge.

Perhaps I should have said benefit of the doubt, where the facts are a coin toss?

[blackshoe]

That I'd buy.

[iviehoff]

I think someone has pointed to the fact that the ACBL regs on claimed slips of the tongue say that the balance of probabilities at which the director should be willing to agree to change on is "overwhelming". Plainly that is specific ACBL regs which do not run in Croatia. Nevertheless it offers a hint to us that being very sceptical about how often a claimed slip of the tongue is really a change of mind is the right idea.

I agree with Pran that the line of up to that point makes this look very much like a change of mind. However would that information be available to the director making a ruling at the time? East surely knows exactly what is going on at that point, but would it be appropriate for East to draw details of this nature to the Director's attention while the hand is still being played?

What information is generally going to be available in these cases? It seems to me, unless you actually look at things like the development of the play, pretty much all you are going to have most of the time is "he said clubs and an interval of time later said that was a slip of the tongue." How are you ever to make any kind of balance of probabilities from that?

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2013-September-17, 07:38, said:

I think someone has pointed to the fact that the ACBL regs on claimed slips of the tongue say that the balance of probabilities at which the director should be willing to agree to change on is "overwhelming". Plainly that is specific ACBL regs which do not run in Croatia. Nevertheless it offers a hint to us that being very sceptical about how often a claimed slip of the tongue is really a change of mind is the right idea.

I agree with Pran that the line of up to that point makes this look very much like a change of mind. However would that information be available to the director making a ruling at the time? East surely knows exactly what is going on at that point, but would it be appropriate for East to draw details of this nature to the Director's attention while the hand is still being played?

What information is generally going to be available in these cases? It seems to me, unless you actually look at things like the development of the play, pretty much all you are going to have most of the time is "he said clubs and an interval of time later said that was a slip of the tongue." How are you ever to make any kind of balance of probabilities from that?

There shouldn't be much of a problem clarifying the last couple of cards played before the case?
Here the Director should find out that declarer played ♣A, then called for ♣9 and eventually wanted to play a small diamond from dummy instead.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2013-September-17, 08:22, said:

There shouldn't be much of a problem clarifying the last couple of cards played before the case?
Here the Director should find out that declarer played ♣A, then called for ♣9 and eventually wanted to play a small diamond from dummy instead.

But he'd need to actually look at declarer's hand to realise that playing the CA followed by ruffing the diamond was nonsense, and directors are generally discouraged from looking at the cards during the play. Whereas E doesn't need to look at declarer's hand as he has a count.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2013-September-17, 10:12, said:

But he'd need to actually look at declarer's hand to realise that playing the CA followed by ruffing the diamond was nonsense, and directors are generally discouraged from looking at the cards during the play. Whereas E doesn't need to look at declarer's hand as he has a count.

No, he doesn't need to look at declarer's hand to rule that he is not convinced the call for the ♣9 was a misnomer when the last previous play was the ♣A. However, much depends on the impression the Director has of the situation.

[lamford]

pran, on 2013-September-17, 15:01, said:

No, he doesn't need to look at declarer's hand to rule that he is not convinced the call for the ♣9 was a misnomer when the last previous play was the ♣A. However, much depends on the impression the Director has of the situation.

This was a genuine case, and all the TD did was ask South what he intended to say. He said that he meant to say "diamond." "He would, wouldn't he?", as Mandy Rice-Davies would say.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2013-September-17, 16:42, said:

This was a genuine case, and all the TD did was ask South what he intended to say. He said that he meant to say "diamond." "He would, wouldn't he?", as Mandy Rice-Davies would say.

• When a player changes a designation/call, he usually says he originally had the new choice in mind.
• IMO the player often believes his own statement.
• The director usually rules as if that statement were true.

Mechanical-error rules are complex, encourage carelessness, reward wishful thinking, and increase the director's power to decide events.

[iviehoff]

lamford, on 2013-September-17, 16:42, said:

This was a genuine case, and all the TD did was ask South what he intended to say. He said that he meant to say "diamond." "He would, wouldn't he?", as Mandy Rice-Davies would say.

That's why that's the wrong question to ask. The correct question to ask is something like "when you said the word 'club', were you aware that 'club' was what you said?" Of course you can still lie in response to that question, but it will feel like a lie. Answering "diamond" to the question actually asked doesn't actually feel like a lie, of course you intended to play a diamond.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2013-September-17, 15:01, said:

No, he doesn't need to look at declarer's hand to rule that he is not convinced the call for the ♣9 was a misnomer when the last previous play was the ♣A. However, much depends on the impression the Director has of the situation.

If all you know is that the previous card was the CA, that actually makes it easier for you to believe that there was a slip of the tongue, because "club" might have got stuck on the player's tongue. You need to know more than that to realise that to realise that cashing the CA before ruffing a diamond is mad, which I understand to have been your original argument and was the one that convinced me.