BBO Discussion Forums: Play one, your choice - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Play one, your choice Netherlands

Poll: Play one, your choice (25 member(s) have cast votes)

Which Law?

  1. 46B1 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. 46B2 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. 46B3 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. 46B4 (1 votes [4.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.00%

  5. 46B5 (20 votes [80.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 80.00%

  6. Not 46B (4 votes [16.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 16.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

Posted 2011-September-22, 08:30

There is a discussion in the Netherlands amongst senior TDs. A correspondent writes:


Declarer, South, plays a spade, small from West. Then he thinks for a long while and says to dummy: "I don't know, play one, your choice".
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

#2 User is offline   RMB1 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,841
  • Joined: 2007-January-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Exeter, UK
  • Interests:EBU/EBL TD
    Bridge, Cinema, Theatre, Food,
    [Walking - not so much]

Posted 2011-September-22, 08:41

View Postbluejak, on 2011-September-22, 08:30, said:

Declarer, South, plays a spade, small from West. Then he thinks for a long while and says to dummy: "I don't know, play one, your choice".

"I don't know" is a gratuitous remark.

"play one" does not indicate suit or rank: Law 46B5, either defender may choose.

"your choice" is not a permitted instruction to dummy.
Robin

"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
0

#3 User is offline   iviehoff 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,165
  • Joined: 2009-July-15

Posted 2011-September-22, 09:13

46B5. Why is there any uncertainty?
0

#4 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,235
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2011-September-22, 11:43

View Postiviehoff, on 2011-September-22, 09:13, said:

46B5. Why is there any uncertainty?

Are you sure that dummy does not have KJx of clubs, when the defenders can choose between the king and jack, but not insist on the x? There is an example in the White Book I believe. The point is that declarer's choice of a high card is incontrovertible.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#5 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,263
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2011-September-22, 12:46

Law 43A1{c} said:

Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

A consequence of this law is that declarer may not seek any advice from dummy or ask dummy to make any decision about the play.

Law 46B5 said:

If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank (as by saying ‘play anything’ or words of like meaning) either defender may designate the play from dummy.
(My enhancement)

I have had the very question in OP from where the "problem" originated, gave the comments above, and honestly do not see any problem at all.

The fact that dummy cannot legally play any suit other than the one led does not excuse declarer from positively designating this suit when he calls a card. A claim was that because dummy must follow suit then declarer had (implicitly) designated this suit (without designating any rank), an opinion with which I cannot in any way concur.
0

#6 User is offline   nigel_k 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,207
  • Joined: 2009-April-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wellington, NZ

Posted 2011-September-22, 14:21

The laws appear to have not fully contemplated the situation where dummy is required to follow suit.

Obviously 46B5 on its own would suggest that the defenders can designate the card played. But 46B5 is subject to the exception "when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible". It is incontrovertible that declarer intended to play a spade. The issue is whether it follows we should deem that a suit has effectively been designated and therefore apply 46B2. I don't know the answer but would tend to agree with pran and stick to 46B5.

Of course declarer loses two tricks either way because 46B2 would require the jack to be played.
0

#7 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2011-September-22, 14:25

We are being led somewhere else? I feel the rose thorns from a garden path. Bluejack posted this, and would not do so if the answer were as obvious as it seems.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#8 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,135
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2011-September-22, 15:13

Somebody is telling porkies. The hands posted show each player with 2 spades, a spade led, declarer says he doesn't care which card is played from dummy, Law 46B5 is clear.

If it turns out something else is going on, of course the ruling might be different.

Players sometimes intend (and TDs sometimes interpret) "play" as "play low". I don't think "play one" fits the same interpretation, but no doubt someone will argue it does. I say "pfui", and stand by 46B5, on the basis of the information in David's post.

"Declarer's choice of a high card is incontrovertible". No, it's not. Unless you're saying that the only cards available to play are "high".

The mention of clubs though makes me wonder if the problem I'm seeing now is different to the one originally posted. Either that or the person who mentioned clubs is on drugs.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#9 User is offline   shyams 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,379
  • Joined: 2009-August-02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2011-September-22, 15:20

Law 46A and Law 43A should only apply.

46A: When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

Law 46B includes "(except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible)". Here, declarer's intention was incontrovertible albeit illegal -- he/she clearly wanted dummy to make the 50:50 guess on behalf of declarer.

Since dummy is prevented (law 43A quoted by pran) from deciding on behalf of declarer, the applicable clause becomes 46A -- i.e. declarer's designation is not clear. Call TD -- who should ask declarer to designate one specific card.
0

#10 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2011-September-22, 15:52



46B5 was written for my personal amusement.

At Notrump I lead the Ace of clubs, and give the opps the opportunity to do it for me; or I discard the Diamond on the next club if they don't take the bait.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
1

#11 User is offline   sfi 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,061
  • Joined: 2009-May-18
  • Location:Oz

Posted 2011-September-22, 17:07

View Postiviehoff, on 2011-September-22, 09:13, said:

46B5. Why is there any uncertainty?


Clearly I'm in a very small minority, but IMO declarer has not indicated that the choice is irrelevant "(as by saying ‘play anything’ or words of like meaning)". Therefore I don't think 46B5 is applicable. Declarer just needs to be told that this is not an appropriate thing to say, that dummy cannot make the decision, and to get on with the game.

I voted for 46B4, but it isn't really applicable either. Nor is any subsection of 46B though.
1

#12 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,263
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2011-September-22, 17:13

View Postshyams, on 2011-September-22, 15:20, said:

Law 46A and Law 43A should only apply.

46A: When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

Law 46B includes "(except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible)". Here, declarer's intention was incontrovertible albeit illegal -- he/she clearly wanted dummy to make the 50:50 guess on behalf of declarer.

Since dummy is prevented (law 43A quoted by pran) from deciding on behalf of declarer, the applicable clause becomes 46A -- i.e. declarer's designation is not clear. Call TD -- who should ask declarer to designate one specific card.


Will anybody dispute that Law 46B5 applies if declarer had said just "play anything" (and nothing else)? In that case we have a clear correlation with the words used in Law 46B5 and either defender will decide the card to be played from dummy. However defenders are not free to designate any of dummy's cards, Law 44C requires them to designate one of dummy's cards in the suit led.

And when declarer is so sloppy with his call of a card from dummy as when he says "play any card" or words to that effect I (for one) shall not let him afterwards claim that he "of course did not mean it". Law 46B5 is there for a reason and none of the laws under L46B allows TD to let declarer clarify what he meant.
0

#13 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2011-September-22, 17:14

Not 46B.

Obviously it's not any of 46B1-4 - declarer hasn't designated or called for any card, suit, rank or altitude.

I don't think it's 46B5 either. Declarer has not indicated a play at all, and his words were not at all of like meaning to "play anything". Declarer has asked that dummy choose which card to play. That is, he wants dummy to make a bridge decision, not a random or arbitrary selection.

Declarer has made a gratuitous comment or two, and has solicited a breach of Law 43A1, but that's all he's done.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
1

#14 User is offline   RMB1 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,841
  • Joined: 2007-January-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Exeter, UK
  • Interests:EBU/EBL TD
    Bridge, Cinema, Theatre, Food,
    [Walking - not so much]

Posted 2011-September-22, 17:17

View Postgnasher, on 2011-September-22, 17:14, said:

I don't think it's 46B5 either. Declarer has not indicated a play at all, and his words were not at all like "play anything". Declarer has asked that dummy choose which card to play. That is, he wants dummy to make a bridge decision, not a random or arbitrary selection.


I don't see sufficient difference between "play anything" and "play one".
Robin

"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
0

#15 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,263
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2011-September-22, 17:18

View Postgnasher, on 2011-September-22, 17:14, said:

Not 46B.

Obviously it's not any of 46B1-4 - declarer hasn't designated or called for any card, suit, rank or altitude.

I don't think it's 46B5 either. Declarer has not indicated a play at all, and his words were not at all like "play anything". Declarer has asked that dummy choose which card to play. That is, he wants dummy to make a bridge decision, not a random or arbitrary selection.

Declarer has made a gratuitous comment or two, and has solicited a breach of Law 43A1, but that's all he's done.

He did request a card - and he (deliberately) did not designate suit or rank.
0

#16 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,484
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2011-September-22, 17:32

View Postgnasher, on 2011-September-22, 17:14, said:

Declarer has not indicated a play at all, and his words were not at all of like meaning to "play anything". Declarer has asked that dummy choose which card to play.

Whenever there are only two cards in dummy and declarer says "play anything", it is exactly the same as saying "dummy, please decide which of these two cards to play". The motivation may be different, because when you say "play anything" you generally expect it to make no difference which card is chosen, but in either case the words indicate a play without designating either a suit or a rank.

What would your view be if he had said "play something", or "play one of those cards"?
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#17 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

Posted 2011-September-22, 18:29

View Postlamford, on 2011-September-22, 11:43, said:

Are you sure that dummy does not have KJx of clubs, when the defenders can choose between the king and jack, but not insist on the x? There is an example in the White Book I believe. The point is that declarer's choice of a high card is incontrovertible.

?????????????????????????????

Strangely enough, when I posted this problem, I did not mean a different problem.
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

#18 User is offline   iviehoff 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,165
  • Joined: 2009-July-15

Posted 2011-September-23, 02:36

View Postsfi, on 2011-September-22, 17:07, said:

Clearly I'm in a very small minority, but IMO declarer has not indicated that the choice is irrelevant "(as by saying ‘play anything’ or words of like meaning)".

Surely "you choose" is of "like meaning" to "play anything". One can argue, and some have, that it doesn't mean precisely the same thing, but the law doesn't say "of precisely the same meaning", it says "of like meaning", which does not require it to mean precisely the same thing.

View Postsfi, on 2011-September-22, 17:07, said:

I voted for 46B4, but it isn't really applicable either.

Rather strange to vote for it then. I think it is quite clear that 46B4 is inapplicable. Declarer clearly did not call for a card that is not in dummy, nor even anything like that. I expect what you mean was that you would like the director to rule that Declarer must now try again and call for a card that is in dummy. If that is the ruling, clearly 46B4 cannot be the grounds for it. If you do want to rule like that, there is a better argument for it.

46B starts with these words:
"In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply"
What you could potentially have argued is that none of the "following restrictions" apply, so declarer is in effect in the situation of not yet having made a designation at all, and is therefore still free to make one. Thus I can see the logic of that minority who voted for "Not 46B". But I remain of the opinion that the restriction in 46B5 does apply for the reason I give in the previous paragraph.
0

#19 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,235
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2011-September-23, 04:08

View PostRMB1, on 2011-September-22, 17:17, said:

I don't see sufficient difference between "play anything" and "play one".

I agree; gnasher is taking the words too literally. "<snip> indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank (as by saying ‘play anything’ or words of like meaning) <snip>" has been met. It is irrelevant whether dummy is being asked to pick randomly or to use judgement to pick. For dummy to decide would, as pran pointed out under 43A1c, not be permitted. So the effect of "play anything" and "you choose" are identical, and one meaning of "meaning" is "that which is communicated". And apologies to bluejak for thinking he had made an error in the question!
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#20 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,263
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2011-September-23, 05:28

View Postlamford, on 2011-September-23, 04:08, said:

[...]
And apologies to bluejak for thinking he had made an error in the question!

In the original "problem" (not the OP in this thread) Dummy's cards were indeed KJx. In the revised "problem" (still not the OP in this thread) Dummy's cards were changed to KJ.

Only when presented in this thread the suit had been changed from Clubs to Spades (making no difference to the case itself).

I guess the confusion (if there ever was one) has arisen from this fact and somebody (other than me) recognising the original "problem".
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users