Search MSO Worldwide

Appeal No 4

Played Card

Event: Life Master Pairs, 11 August, first qualifying session

Board 15
Dealer: South
Vulnerability: N/S

			A K Q J 10 4 2
			K 10
			Q 10
			8 2
	9 7 6 5	N W E S			3
	8 4 2				J 9 5
	A K 9 7				J 8 5 4
	K 4				A 7 6 5 3
			8
			A Q 7 6 3
			6 3 2
			Q J 10 9

West		North	East	South
Lourie		Lord	Schuett	Fox
				Pass
Pass		1	Pass	1NT
Pass		3NT	All Pass

The Facts: 3NT went down two, plus 200 for E/W. At 3NT, West led the 7. Declarer called for the queen. It won. Declarer then played the A,K, Q by calling for each. Then he called for the 10. Dummy did not play it, but said, "what?" Declarer repeated his call for the 10, but a bit softly. Dummy did not hear this call and asked, "what?" again. Declarer then said "ten of diamonds, ten of diamonds, ten of diamonds" loudly. The Director was then called and ruled that the 10 had been played.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. North and West attended the hearing. North explained that South was recovering from a grievous illness that may have affected his speech processes. North said that South was pointing toward the spade suit when calling for the 10. North said that was clearly South's intention to play off the spades when he was calling for the 10. North likened South's action to a repeated inadvertent designation and cited a Vancouver appeal decision in support of his contention. The facts were not challenged by West. She said that the problem occurred because North wouldn't play the 10 when it was clearly designated.

The Committee's decision: The ACBL and the bridge legislators have tried to create as level a playing field for all players as they can. The game is nonetheless a game for thinkers. When plays are made carelessly, the carelessness cannot be excused and the laws themselves superseded.

Law 47C says: "a played card may be withdrawn without penalty after a change of designation as permitted by Law 45C4b."

Law 45C4b says, "a player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought. . ."

The Laws Commission's San Antonio meeting minutes contain the following note regarding Law 45C4b.

"It was clear to the Laws Commission that:
(1) The presumption must be that the card named was the one intended.
(2) The burden of proof is on the declarer.
(3) The standard of proof is 'overwhelming.'
(4) In judging 'without pause for thought,' if the declarer has made a play after an inadvertent designation, a 'pause for thought' has occurred."

In this case, despite the irrationality of the play of the 10, declarer's repeated insistence on playing it made clear that its designation was intentional and not, therefore, subject to withdrawal.

The Committee briefly considered an Appeal Without Merit Penalty Point for the appellants but decided against it for two reasons:

(1) This appeal was based on a player's health handicap and how the laws must be interpreted with regard thereto. While accommodation for handicap has been brought before committees before, the general public's knowledge of the standards is suspect.
(2) This appeal, based on Law 45C4b, had some similarities with the much publicized Vancouver appeal, which, though successful, had less merit than this one.

In effect, this Committee believed that the Vancouver decision cast doubt in the bridge public's minds about what constitutes cause for per-mitting the withdrawal of a designated card. Since the public's confusion exists in part because of the National Appeals Committee's own actions, it would be wrong to punish a player for bringing an appeal which was based on the Committee's own published statements.