[gombo121]

Two-card no-trump ending. North (dummy) holds ♦K2, East holds ♦AQ over it. While West cashes a winner in other suit, dummy discards deuce and East puts ace on the table. Immediately upon seeing it he exclaims "Ouch!" and tries to take it back.
Would you allow?

If not, what kind of situations in your opinion are referred to in the Law 45C4(b)?

Quote

Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. If an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his hand, and substitute another (see Laws 47D and 16D1).

(emphasis to indicate that it is certainly meant to apply to defenders in some way).

[1eyedjack]

gombo121, on 2011-September-19, 12:26, said:

Two-card no-trump ending. North (dummy) holds ♦K2, East holds ♦AQ over it. While West cashes a winner in other suit, dummy discards deuce and East puts ace on the table. Immediately upon seeing it he exclaims "Ouch!" and tries to take it back.
Would you allow?

If not, what kind of situations in your opinion are referred to in the Law 45C4(b)?

(emphasis to indicate that it is certainly meant to apply to defenders in some way).

There have been a few threads on this in the last year or so in this forum. The concensus among the secretary birds is that there is a significant distinction between a card which is played and one which is merely designated, and a played card cannot be retracted. Don't try to wrack your brains about what malice is prevented by the one but not the other. I think it has something to do with the fact that if you designate a card without actually playing it then you might not actually hold the designated card.

[RMB1]

gombo121, on 2011-September-19, 12:26, said:

If not, what kind of situations in your opinion are referred to in the Law 45C4(b)?

Law 45C4 refers to "names or otherwise designates" and later to "unintended designation".
The designation is in the sense of names, or points at, etc.
Exposing a card as if to play it is not a designation, and can not be changed under Law 45C4b.

East best's shot was to say "and I take the last trick": making it clear that exposing the ♦Ace was a claim.

[iviehoff]

Regardless of whether we rule the card was designated, the card was exposed. An honour card exposed by a defender, even unintentionally, as in accidentally dropping it, must be played at the first legal opportunity, which is now, because it becomes a major penalty card. Unless the card was obviously accidentally exposed, it would be ruled intentionally exposed, in which case it must be played at the first legal opportunity regardless of its rank.

So if a defender can be made to play a card merely because it was accidentally dropped, it is clutching at straws to think that they might get away with withdrawing it on grounds of unintentional designation.

[campboy]

In the normal course of things the only player who designates cards is declarer when playing from dummy. Neither declarer nor either defender may change a card which he has played from his own hand in the usual way.

[gombo121]

campboy, on 2011-September-20, 03:28, said:

In the normal course of things the only player who designates cards is declarer when playing from dummy. Neither declarer nor either defender may change a card which he has played from his own hand in the usual way.

Thank you, I've got the point and sorry for failing to use search function properly.
But I still wonder, what the Law 45C4(b) (and entire 45C4 to that matter) is about? If it is meant to allow declarer to get away with something like "club, erh... I mean, top club!", it cannot be worded more vaguely (at the very least it can mention declarer as opposed to player in general). If something else, than what? Or is it just a relic of some old and forgotten days?

[blackshoe]

The fact that it is not normal for a defender to designate a card he intends to play does not mean that it can never happen. The fact that it is not normal for a person to miss-speak does not mean that it will never happen. Similarly, the other things mentioned in Law 45C are not normal, but they can happen. I suspect that they have happened often enough that the lawmakers felt it worthwhile to specify what to do when they do happen.

If "club, erh... I mean, top club!" is clearly a change of mind, the designation cannot be changed. If it was clearly unintended (and there was no pause for thought) it can be changed. If the intent is not clear, the TD must make a judgement. That's what we get paid to do. It might be better if the laws did not allow changes at all, but that's a discussion for another thread and a different forum ("Changing Laws...").

[Coelacanth]

gombo121, on 2011-September-19, 12:26, said:

Two-card no-trump ending. North (dummy) holds ♦K2, East holds ♦AQ over it. While West cashes a winner in other suit, dummy discards deuce and East puts ace on the table. Immediately upon seeing it he exclaims "Ouch!" and tries to take it back.
Would you allow?

If not, what kind of situations in your opinion are referred to in the Law 45C4(b)?

(emphasis to indicate that it is certainly meant to apply to defenders in some way).

This is clearly a L45C1 situation, not L45C4(b), so the Ace is a played card and cannot be retracted.

To answer your question about when 45C4(b) might apply to a defender...I have on occasion played against visually-impaired players. Generally, each player vocally names the card he is playing as he plays it. In your scenario, if the East player had detached the ♦Q and started placing it on the table, but actually named the ♦A (perhaps in anticipation of winning the final trick with it), I think he'd be allowed to change this inadvertent designation under 45C4(b).

[bluejak]

There have been a few, albeit very rare, situations where a defender, or even declarer from his own hand, has designated a card rather than played it. Medical problems are the main reason, certainly, but as with many Laws the fact that situations may be very rare does not mean they should not be considered.

Suppose declarer picks up his coffee while waiting for RHO to lead. RHO leads the ♥9. Declarer, who has his hands full [perhaps he has a sugar bowl in the other hand] says "I am playing the ace" and then realises he did not mean it. Can he change it?

Well, he designated the card he proposed to play rather than played it, so now we see whether Law 45C4B allows a change.

[mycroft]

I'm sure that at least once a year, I pull a card, drop it onto the table, miss, and as I'm bending down to pick it up off the floor, say "diamond 8" or the equivalent. Now, it isn't a card that "must be played" in either defender (if it falls down-side-up, at least) or declarer case, but if I decide bent over that another play is better, can I change it?

[blackshoe]

Not if there was a pause for thought — which it sounds like there probably was.