Law 46

[Chris3875]

[hv=n=sh5d8cj5&s=shdc9876]133|200|[/hv]

 

South was declarer in 3NT and with 4 cards left and in dummy, she called "Club". East/West had no clubs. Dummy, correctly, played the 5, and Declarer immediately said "No, I meant the Jack!". Director was called.

 

By playing the 5, Declarer makes only 2 tricks as she then gets stuck in dummy when she plays the club back to the Jack.

 

I felt that this was a case of "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible" - albeit extremely sloppy, careless play. I ran this scenario past 4 very experienced directors at a National event last week and only one would have allowed Declarer to change from the 5 to the Jack.

[peachy]

To me, this appears to be a typical slip of the mind, declarer did not realize clubs were blocked until after dummy had played. He was careless; also mindboggling why he did not claim instead of playing on. I would not allow change.

[blackshoe]

I wouldn't allow a change either.

[aguahombre]

the only time a change would be allowed would be if we were the defenders

:)

[bluejak]

No change permitted.

[Chris3875]

Ok - that's pretty clear ! Thanks.

 

What sort of scenario would be covered by the "incontrovertible" clause in Law 46?

[bluejak]

Suppose dummy has spades AKQJT2. Declarer says "spade ace", next he says "spade king", next he says "spade", he could probably convince the TD he meant to play another high one.

 

These are judgement decisions. The story you told us led us to judge he did not mean high club at the moment he said it, he just accidentally blocked the suit - and realised a moment later.

[nigel_k]

Wow.

 

I really disagree that declarer accidentally blocked the suit, unless they are a rank beginner. Not playing the jack first is not merely careless, it is squarely in the category of mind-bogglingly irrational for anyone who has played much bridge at all. To me the only possible explanation is that declarer always wanted to play the jack but failed to name the rank when calling for card.

 

The only way I would rule against declarer here is if 'incontrovertible intention' can only be inferred from what declarer said and the cards in dummy, it cannot include inferences from declarer's own hand. But I see nothing in the laws to suggest restricting it in this way.

[bluejak]

If you have never made a stupid mistake in your life you are to be commended. However, for us mere mortals, who comprise the other 99.9999% of the human race who do make silly mistakes, we sometimes block suits.

 

It is not satisfactory to have TDs ruling based on the idea that people do not make stupid mistakes because we know perfectly well that they do. We do not rule these sort of situations from the hand because that does not tell us much.

[pran]

Ages ago a Norwegian championship was lost on a mistake like this.

No change permitted.

[axman]

Ok - that's pretty clear ! Thanks.

 

What sort of scenario would be covered by the "incontrovertible" clause in Law 46?

WHILE he calls "club" he is shaking his fist up and down with his thumb pointing up.

 

Certainly, this might be presumed to be a lot of trouble for something that would be better accomplished via 'CJ'; but considering the consequences of 'club'- rather worth it.

[duschek]

To me it seems that declarer realises his mistake because he sees the ♣5 played contrary to his expectation. Then the following applies:

 

Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought.

[aguahombre]

Excellent examples of two proper applications of 46, by david and Axman. There might be a tougher one where declarer starts to say "Club Jack" and chokes in the middle, unnoticed by pard.

[shintaro]

Excellent examples of two proper applications of 46, by david and Axman. There might be a tougher one where declarer starts to say "Club Jack" and chokes in the middle, unnoticed by pard.

:P

 

Unless his partner is called 'Jack'

 

:D

[jeremy69]

There was a ruling and appeal on exactly this point at the recent EBU County Championship qualifier (so all assumed to be reasonable players). Declarer was in 4S. He won the trump lead and drew trumps and the only critical suit was hearts which were Jxxxx opposite AQ. Declarer took a finesse which lost, cashed the Ace when next on lead and crossed to dummy for the last time. Now he called for a heart, dummy decided it should be the jack and the opponents called the TD. The TD decided it was incontrovertibly his intention to play the Jack. The appeal committee disagree and also imposed a PP on dummy for his "correction" of the card called for.

[lamford]

The appeal committee disagree and also imposed a PP on dummy for his "correction" of the card called for.

Did they also impose a repeat of the Club Director Course on the TD in question?

[RMB1]

Did they also impose a repeat of the Club Director Course on the TD in question?

The AC thought there was a case for ruling "different intention incontrovertible" but on the evidence from the players who attended the AC they were not persuaded to rule that way. Circumstances for ruling "different intention incontrovertible" is not something that is covered on the Club Directors' Course.

 

Robin

[pran]

Circumstances for ruling "different intention incontrovertible" is not something that is covered on the Club Directors' Course.

 

Robin

Lousy course.

[jeremy69]

Lousy course.

 

Well, of course, I bow to your superior knowledge here but I attended one such course about 6 weeks ago as an observer. A lot of material was covered during the day, it was appropriate to the level of the participants,and well run. There are courses to follow up on the introduction course which do cover this element. I guess the there is only so much you can cover in one day and a balance has to be struck.

[bluejak]

Lousy course.

No doubt you know that what is covered is wrong because you have attended so many English club TD courses and are therefore an expert on them. Of course, when you have a six hour day it is no doubt important to cram at least 24 hours tuition in.

[pran]

I have attended so many courses that I know how we stress the importance of the word "incontrovertible" whenever we lecture any of the laws where this word occurs. Some of the situations they cover are among the most common situations a director will meet so these laws are almost always included in the course.

 

But of course, if the course is focused on running events rather than on the laws ...... (we have many such courses as well)

[lamford]

Lousy course.

 

Well, of course, I bow to your superior knowledge here but I attended one such course about 6 weeks ago as an observer. A lot of material was covered during the day, it was appropriate to the level of the participants,and well run.

I would agree with jeremy; I also attended such a course, and it was excellent. And it certainly did cover whether the player's intention was incontrovertible. One or two of the students thought that was a car which did not have a removable roof, but the majority understood the principle and would have ruled correctly in the example quoted here.

[RMB1]

... And it certainly did cover whether the player's intention was incontrovertible. One or two of the students thought that was a car which did not have a removable roof, but the majority understood the principle and would have ruled correctly in the example quoted here.

The usual example of "different intention was incontrovertible" is dummy winning the previous trick with CA from CAKQJ2 and declarer calling for "club" and being allowed to play CK. Are there other examples?

 

Robin

[blackshoe]

I have attended so many courses that I know how we stress the importance of the word "incontrovertible" whenever we lecture any of the laws where this word occurs. Some of the situations they cover are among the most common situations a director will meet so these laws are almost always included in the course.

 

But of course, if the course is focused on running events rather than on the laws ...... (we have many such courses as well)

I just did a search of my lawbook. The word "incontrovertible" occurs once, in Law 46B.

[pran]

I have attended so many courses that I know how we stress the importance of the word "incontrovertible" whenever we lecture any of the laws where this word occurs. Some of the situations they cover are among the most common situations a director will meet so these laws are almost always included in the course.

 

But of course, if the course is focused on running events rather than on the laws ...... (we have many such courses as well)

I just did a search of my lawbook. The word "incontrovertible" occurs once, in Law 46B.

Maybe I should have added something like "or similar", because we stress this principle for instance also when judging what in the older laws was termed "irrational" etc.

 

There are many such situations for judgements in the laws and they all amount more or less to the same duty on the Director. He must just determine what is a reasonable ruling while observing the interests of both sides.