LAW 45 - CARD PLAYED

Pont

D. Dummy Picks up a Non-designated Card
1. If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw and return to his hand a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it; if declarer’s RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick. (See Law 16C.)

Question: Does this mean that whilst Declarer is still quite - if Dummy places a card in play Declarer can charge that card to another card even if Declarer’s RHO has played a card? And, in such case Defender can change his choice of card to play? If so what do we do about the fact that Declarer has seen that first card played by defender?

gordonrainsford

Declarer is not changing a card since he didn't play a card in the first place. The defender is not entirely blameless in following to a card not properly played.

ais523

It isn't 100% clear to me who the offending side here is (which matters because it determines whether declarer's RHO's card is UI to declarer). I'm assuming it's the declaring side, but I'm unsure.

Senior_Kibitzer

" .... whilst Declarer is still quite .... "

I don't understand that bit, but maybe "quite" is a typo for "quiet", so I will guess that declarer did not call for anything at all from dummy but dummy played a card anyway. In such case, Law 45F also applies.

"Declarer is not changing a card since he didn't play a card in the first place."

I think the OP is asking whether he can ask for the card played by dummy to be changed. The answer then is that dummy must replace the card with the card called by declarer, or in the case where declarer had not called for any card, the card that declarer now requests.

"The defender is not entirely blameless in following to a card not properly played."

Maybe not entirely, but it may depend to some extent on how good the defender's hearing is. I can see no suggestion in the Laws that we might consider the defending side as anything other than a "non-offending side" in this case.