34 English Bridge June 2019 www.ebu.co.uk
There is no provision in law to change a played card
(except from dummy) unless there has been some
There are laws that allow a bid to be changed
(mechanical error) and a call of a card from dummy
to be changed (slip of the tongue), but not a change
of card played from a 'closed' hand; and in any case
there is no law that allows a change due to a change
of mind (or loss of concentration).
So declarer should not have been allowed to
change his card, and the question of information
arising from seeing defenders play does not arise.
Ask Robin Compiled by Robin Barker
Trouble at the table
ichard Denning asked two related
questions: I had a ruling made against me
at the table, which I reluctantly accepted,
but common sense suggests the ruling was
At trick 7, declarer called for a spade from
dummy. Declarer's RHO followed with the 5 and
declarer played the 7. I, as declarer's LHO, was
somewhat surprised to be able to make such a
cheap trick and played the jack. My partner and I,
and also dummy turned over our cards, while
declarer did not. I was considering my lead to the
next trick when declarer said, 'I didn't mean to
play that - I meant to play the king. I want to
change it for the king'. The director was called and
ruled that the change was allowed and I could
change my card to a lower one if I so wished.
Really? By playing the wrong card and then
changing her mind, declarer had discovered that I
did not have the 8, 9 or ten, but did have the jack.
That gave her considerable information about the
layout of not only that suit, but possibly of the
I feel sure this ruling isn't right. Surely it is as up
to declarer to concentrate on the game as it is for
the defence? T
he editor asks: I play 5 card majors and 2/1
irregularly with a couple of partners. Do I
alert a wide-ranging forcing 1NT
response, and do I alert a 2/1 response as being
game-forcing? I can't see it on the Alerting &
Announcements crib sheet, but someone who
plays it more regularly than me says I should.
f the same thing happened, but it went ™3
from dummy, ™5 from RHO, then declarer's
lack of concentration meant she revoked by
throwing away the ´7, (not playing a heart and
not trumping), and I won with ™J, then, as before,
declarer realised her mistake and wanted to play
the ™K, would that make a difference to the
Both are alertable, see Blue Book 4H2. Game forcing
2/1 responses is 4H2 (c) (4). Wide-ranging NT
response is 4H2 (h).
4H2 Because they have a potentially unexpected
meaning, players must alert:
(c) Responses to a non-forcing opening bid of one of a
(4) A new suit without a jump that is forcing to game.
Subsequent natural bids below game (e.g. 2NT)
Yes. Declarer can change a card to correct a revoke;
and the defender who played after declarer can
change the card they played.
In this case, the card previously played by
defender is authorised information to defender's
partner but unauthorised to declarer. So declarer
should not be allowed to gain from the information,
and cannot try revoking to gain information.
Revoking to gain information is famously called
the Alcatraz Coup. In the past, the laws did not deal
well with this coup and so the remedy was more