Play one, your choice

[bluejak]

This has got to be one of the silliest threads we've had in here — and a prime example of the kind of "blml" BS we try to avoid. I'm tempted to lock the thread, but you guys seem to be having fun with it, so I won't. I might later.

About one in four or five posts has some value so let us let it roll.

[gnasher]

This has got to be one of the silliest threads we've had in here — and a prime example of the kind of "blml" BS we try to avoid. I'm tempted to lock the thread, but you guys seem to be having fun with it, so I won't. I might later.

That partly results from the nature of the question and the way it was phrased. If you pose a question about the interpretation of a law, and that law demands interpretation of a player's language, it's hard to avoid a discussion of language.

[gnasher]

Suppose, insteead, that the question had been the arguably more on-topic one of "This occurred; how would you rule?"

 

One can't be certain without hearing what the players have to say, but it seems very likely that what actually happened is that declarer made a jocular comment which, although phrased as an instruction to dummy, was not intended to be acted upon. Then an opponent (who may possibly play at Lamford's club) asked for a ruling under Law 46B. What should the director do?

 

It seems to me that to allow the defenders to choose dummy's cards in this situation would be iniquitous, would not be supported by the majority of players, and would tend to bring the laws into disrepute. Hence the director seek a way to avoid ruling in that way. If necessary, he can justify this by explaining that the rules have to be interpeted in a way that makes the game playable, and that his interpretation is generally accepted as the correct one.

 

The director has been given two ways to arrive at a ruling that gives a sensible outcome: accept that the declarer's different intention was incontrovertible; or accept that declarer's words mean what they appear to mean, and that this places them outside the scope of Law 46B5. I think he should use one of these, but I don't much care which one he chooses (or, indeed, whether he chooses not to choose, and instead tosses a coin).

[pran]

Suppose, insteead, that the question had been the arguably more on-topic one of "This occurred; how would you rule?"

 

One can't be certain without hearing what the players have to say, but it seems very likely that what actually happened is that declarer made a jocular comment which, although phrased as an instruction to dummy, was not intended to be acted upon. Then an opponent (who may possibly play at Lamford's club) asked for a ruling under Law 46B. What should the director do?

 

It seems to me that to allow the defenders to choose dummy's cards in this situation would be iniquitous, would not be supported by the majority of players, and would tend to bring the laws into disrepute. Hence the director seek a way to avoid ruling in that way. If necessary, he can justify this by explaining that the rules have to be interpeted in a way that makes the game playable, and that his interpretation is generally accepted as the correct one.

 

The director has been given two ways to arrive at a ruling that gives a sensible outcome: accept that the declarer's different intention was incontrovertible; or accept that declarer's words mean what they appear to mean, and that this places them outside the scope of Law 46B5. I think he should use one of these, but I don't much care which one he chooses (or, indeed, whether he chooses not to choose, and instead tosses a coin).

If Director takes declarer's remark as a joke he will simply ask him to call a card in the proper manner.

 

Otherwise (as most here seem to agree) he will apply Law 46B5 and let either defender decide which card to be played from dummy (with no other restriction than that it must be a card in the suit led - even when dummy has KJx in the suit)

[barmar]

This came from a director's course, and it seems like a hypothetical that could only happen there. Declarers know that making this guess is their job, not one they can hand off, and no real player would ever do something like this.

 

Can anyone ever recall a declarer making a "play anything" designation in a situation where it actually made a difference what was played from dummy? The closest I've come is saying something like "Play anything except the heart ace".

[gordontd]

If necessary, he can justify this by explaining that the rules have to be interpeted in a way that makes the game playable, and that his interpretation is generally accepted as the correct one.

Except that this thread suggests it isn't.

[pran]

This came from a director's course, and it seems like a hypothetical that could only happen there. Declarers know that making this guess is their job, not one they can hand off, and no real player would ever do something like this.

 

Can anyone ever recall a declarer making a "play anything" designation in a situation where it actually made a difference what was played from dummy? The closest I've come is saying something like "Play anything except the heart ace".

You would (apparently) be surprised over what has indeed happened in real life.

[gnasher]

You would (apparently) be surprised over what has indeed happened in real life.

Can you provide a link to the details, or a description (perhaps in another thread, to keep the moderators at bay)?

[pran]

You would (apparently) be surprised over what has indeed happened in real life.

Can you provide a link to the details, or a description (perhaps in another thread, to keep the moderators at bay)?

No, I am referring to my own experience from more than 30 years of directing, and I am pretty sure that other (experienced) directors have had their share of similar situations.

[iviehoff]

Can anyone ever recall a declarer making a "play anything" designation in a situation where it actually made a difference what was played from dummy?

Oh, yes. I recall exercising my right to choose a card from dummy, where it mattered, a few times. There are two possible reasons for this. One, declarer has been mistaken in thinking it doesn't matter. On another occasion, declarer simply no longer cared: he was of the opinion he was already getting a bottom, and now didn't care very much how many extra he went down. In other words, these ended up being similar to mistaken concessions of a number of tricks.

[bluejak]

This came from a director's course, and it seems like a hypothetical that could only happen there. Declarers know that making this guess is their job, not one they can hand off, and no real player would ever do something like this.

 

Can anyone ever recall a declarer making a "play anything" designation in a situation where it actually made a difference what was played from dummy? The closest I've come is saying something like "Play anything except the heart ace".

It did not come from a TD course.

 

Yes, of course I have.

 

Lots of things we discuss on these forums are rare. That does not mean they do not happen.

[pran]

It did not come from a TD course.

[...]

When I first received this "problem" it was with the following message:

Sven,

 

No doubt that you remember the problem below from an EBL Tournament Directors Course as an example concerning declarer’s incontrovertible intention.

 

♣KJ6

____

[___]

 

♠ 6

♣73

 

Declarer (South) is in 4♠ and has already won 8 tricks, the last one in his hand. ♣A and ♣Q have not been played yet, while there are 5 outstanding clubs with the defenders. Declarer continues with a small club from his hand and West contributes the ♣8. Declarer now thinks for a while, shrugs his shoulders and says: ´I don’t know, play one´. The defenders ask the TD to apply B5, giving them the choice of card to be played from dummy, which, obviously, will be ♣6. That is not a reasonable ruling. It is completely obvious that South is going to play either ♣J or ♣K to fulfil his contract. So that should be the choice the TD should offer to the defenders.

 

In the Netherlands we changed the above a little and now we have a new problem that divided the directors having two different interpretations of Law 46B.

 

♣KJ

____

[___]

 

♠ 6

♣73

 

Same play, declarer thinks for a long while and says to dummy: “I don’t know, play one, your choice”.

(The rest omitted by me as irrelevant)

 

We may have had different correspondents, but this at least should document that an origin indeed has been a TD Course?

[bluejak]

If you read that document, the first problem was from the course, and the second problem was from a Netherlands TD discussion. That is what it says.

[pran]

If you read that document, the first problem was from the course, and the second problem was from a Netherlands TD discussion. That is what it says.

Precisely!

They took a problem from a TD course and made a slight modification. The "problem" still originated from that course.

[bluejak]

Exactly: the problem was not from that course as you have indicated so well. A totally different problem was on that course - ok, let's be frank, lots of totally different problems were. :)

[barmar]

But my point is still valid -- it was a hypothetical, not a TD asking how he should have ruled in a real case.

 

But I'll admit that the TD course could have gotten its idea to include the problem because something like it came up in actual play.

[bluejak]

Of course it is hypothetical, I never suggested otherwise.