Play one, your choice

[gnasher]

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"?

I'd interpret it as equivalent to "play anything", because it doesn't include a suggestion that partner make a bridge decision about which card to play.

 

What would be your view if he had said "Play whichever card you think is most likely to gain a trick"?

[gnasher]

BTW, strictly from a player point of view, I would find it extraordinary if anyone at the table called the director over the comment rather than just being amused and waiting for declarer to actually call for a card.

Me too.

 

What if dummy actually did choose a card (to your detriment)? Or indeed if he chose one and it was to your advantage?

If declarer did this and then dummy acted upon it, I'd penalise dummy for participating in the play, and adjust the score if he was successful.

[gnasher]

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".

 

As you say, for dummy to decide would be illegal. Therefore the effect of "you choose" is that dummy does nothing at all.

[RMB1]

What would be your view if he had said "Play whichever card you think is most likely to gain a trick"?

 

I would see that as instruction for dummy to play a card, an instruction that does not specify suit or rank, and apply Law 46B5.

[iviehoff]

In the first case, declarer recognises that the choice matters but doesn't want to make it. In the second, declarer suggests that the choice of cards is irrelevant.

I think you are reading things into both formulations of word that aren't necessarily there. Just because one is rapid in devolving responsibility for choice, or describes the choices as "anything", doesn't mean that all options are equivalent. Just because one is slow or indecisive in choosing, or uses the word "choice", doesn't mean there is any practical difference. In myth, Buridan's ass starved because it was slow to choose between two equally attractive sources of food.

 

And even if one can deduce reasons for declarer's indecisiveness from his wording, it just doesn't seem relevant. It seems clear to me that the essence of 46B5 is that declarer is instructing someone else to choose, nothing else.

[iviehoff]

Nor do I, but he didn't merely say "play one". His instructions to dummy were "play one, your choice". In its entirety, that is very different from "play anything".

You assert that there is a large difference, but I struggle to see any practical difference.

 

Clearly in "play(ing) anything", dummy is going to play precisely one, not two or more, since that would be illegal, and I think we can agree that such is not implied by declarer's wording. So in playing anything, he will play one. So any difference does not lie in "play one", it can only lie in "your choice". But to comply with "play anything", dummy must choose the one to play. I accept he could gather up the cards, shuffle them, and play the top one. But that is merely a mechanical method of making a choice. I see no requirement in the instruction "your choice" that dummy must use any specific procedure, or think about what would be better. So choosing one is precisely how dummy would comply with the instruction "play anything".

 

I wonder perhaps if our differences here are because you are making the same false (in my view) hidden assumption as SFI. In other words, I am suspecting you think that the phrase "your choice" implies some specific manner of making a choice, eg, choose the card you think best. But this is not the only way of making a choice, a randomisation algorith is also a way of making a choice, and "your choice" does not specify the choice method.

 

Perhaps more interesting is if declarer did actually give dummy an instruction to randomise the selection of the card, eg

"Shuffle them and then play the one on top". Could the defence now insist on choosing?

Edit: but I see RMB's answer at #29 covers that equally.

[gnasher]

I wonder perhaps if our differences here are because you are making the same false (in my view) hidden assumption as SFI. In other words, I am suspecting you think that the phrase "your choice" implies some specific manner of making a choice, eg, choose the card you think best. But this is not the only way of making a choice, a randomisation algorith is also a way of making a choice, and "your choice" does not specify the choice method.

 

I don't think that' assumption is at all hidden - SFI and I have both made it clear that this is how we understand the term "choice".

 

Our interpretation is supported by the OED, which defines "choice" as "an act of choosing between two or more possibilities" and "to choose" as to "pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more". By this definition, selecting a card at random does not constitute making a choice.

[campboy]

My (Collins) dictionary defines "choose" as "to select (a person, thing, course of action, etc.) from a number of alternatives". Perhaps more tellingly, Google returns about 2,560,000 hits for the exact phrase "randomly chosen".

[lamford]

Our interpretation is supported by the OED, which defines "choice" as "an act of choosing between two or more possibilities" and "to choose" as to "pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more". By this definition, selecting a card at random does not constitute making a choice.

To "choose" is also defined, in many dictionaries, as being "to select from one or more alternatives". Certainly the draw for many sporting events involves "picking out" numbered balls from a bag, without any suggestion that one is more appropriate than another. Exercising a lucky dip with the National Lottery involves some RNG machine "choosing" numbers for you, without any concept of picking the best. Now I would agree that dummy is not allowed to exercise either a skilful or random pick. Certainly we cannot have dummy picking the king on the grounds that his LHO has turned up with eight points already. And if dummy said, "OK, I will toss a coin, and if it is heads I will play the king", I would still seek a ruling if the coin came down the wrong way, and a PP under 40C3(a) for an aid to technique. And 46B5 does seem to be more than appropriate to rule on this case.

[iviehoff]

Our interpretation is supported by the OED, which defines "choice" as "an act of choosing between two or more possibilities" and "to choose" as to "pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more". By this definition, selecting a card at random does not constitute making a choice.

The online OED is providing only a single definition, not full range of usage. Merriam Webster gives a wider range.

 

Consider the following exchanges:

 

"I asked you to choose one, but you just picked up the one nearest your right hand." "You didn't tell me to choose one carefully."

 

"I asked you to choose someone to do this, and you chose Fred, who is completely incompetent." "I chose him because it seemed funny to choose the most inappropriate person to do it."

 

"I asked you to choose someone, but you made them draw lots for it." "They all wanted to do it, and that was the fairest way of deciding it."

 

In the exchanges cited, one person thought they implied "choosing the best" by using the word "choose", but clearly, since there is nothing surprising about the reponses to it, it doesn't hvae to be taken taht way. It is still choosing even if you deliberately choose the worst or most inappropriate, or least effort, or fairest. Thus we see that in practice any process of selection is choosing. In fact Merriam Webster lists "select" as a synonym for "choose". Even if you insist on the OED's definition, it is consistent with that definition to decide that the "most appropriate" is the one that a randomising technique will generate.

 

Edit: I see two other people made the same point more economically before I hit post.

[gnasher]

My (Collins) dictionary defines "choose" as "to select (a person, thing, course of action, etc.) from a number of alternatives". Perhaps more tellingly, Google returns about 2,560,000 hits for the exact phrase "randomly chosen".

Indeed. Personally I'm quite comfortable with the idea that I speak the language of the OED rather than that of your Scrabble Word Book. I'm also unsurprised to learn that I speak better English than the average Internet-user.

 

The online OED is providing only a single definition, not full range of usage

The (not very short) NSOED gives, for "choose":

vt 1 Take by preference out of all that are available; select, pick (out); (w compl.) select as.

2 Decide to do something (rather than something else); think fit to do; be determined to do.

3 Wish to have, want.

vi 4 Make a selection; exercise choice (between, from).

5. Do as one likes, take one's own way.

 

Merriam Webster gives a wider range.

Is that another Scrabble book? Mind you, I've had a look at the online version's definition of "to choose", and I'm not sure which of the definitions you think encompasses random selection.

 

It is still choosing even if you deliberately choose the worst or most inappropriate, or least effort, or fairest.

I agree with that. But I don't think "play anything" implies a deliberate choice.

Edited September 23, 2011 by gnasher

[aguahombre]

It is often the case that debates shed more light on the character of the poster than on the subject at hand.

[iviehoff]

But I don't think "play anything" implies a deliberate choice.

Which I never said. What I said was, that it implied precisely nothing about how the player should act to select a card.

 

You also seemed to agree that "choose one" does not imply a deliberate choice either. He only said "choose", not what kind of a choice.

 

I'm delighted you had a high quality dictionary to hand and confirmed our advice that choose can mean "make a selection".

[joostb1]

It was a question at a TD exam. Given were the hands of N and S:

[hv=pc=n&s=d52hdc&n=dkj6hdc]133|200[/hv]

In a comment on law 46B the Laws Committee of the Dutch Bridge Union, in agreement with an EBL rule, states about this situation that, since it's obvious that the declarer can't choose between K and J (he never contemplated playing the 6), each of the defenders can designate which of these two shall be played. So the correct answer, as far as the exam was concerned, is clear. But there are some Dutch TD's who have a different view on this. One of these, who for years wrote the laws page in the Dutch union's magazine, is of the opinion that the offending side should get an adjusted score based on the actual lay-out of the play and the opponents an artificial score of G=.

[pran]

It was a question at a TD exam. Given were the hands of N and S:

[hv=pc=n&s=d52hdc&n=dkj6hdc]133|200[/hv]

In a comment on law 46B the Laws Committee of the Dutch Bridge Union, in agreement with an EBL rule, states about this situation that, since it's obvious that the declarer can't choose between K and J (he never contemplated playing the 6), each of the defenders can designate which of these two shall be played. So the correct answer, as far as the exam was concerned, is clear. But there are some Dutch TD's who have a different view on this. One of these, who for years wrote the laws page in the Dutch union's magazine, is of the opinion that the offending side should get an adjusted score based on the actual lay-out of the play and the opponents an artificial score of G=.

Interesting.

When I was first asked about the situation the suit was Clubs!

Not that it matters at all.

[bluejak]

I know there was an earlier question with KJ6 in the dummy. But my correspondent has been discussing with other Dutch TDs a follow-up question which does not have KJ6 in the dummy but has KJ in the dummy and that is the question being asked here. He has asked me for an opinion on the question as cited and not as a different question.

[pran]

I know there was an earlier question with KJ6 in the dummy. But my correspondent has been discussing with other Dutch TDs a follow-up question which does not have KJ6 in the dummy but has KJ in the dummy and that is the question being asked here. He has asked me for an opinion on the question as cited and not as a different question.

I have had both variants, from probably the same correspondent, but as I wrote here: With Clubs as the suit in question, not Spades nor Diamonds. Not that this really matters at all.

[billw55]

This is the kind of thread that makes me glad I'm not a TD. And probably other players too :P

 

To me the ruling is absolutely obvious: two tricks to the defense, retain deposit if appealed, and pp to declarer if he bugs me about it. I wouldn't even think a law citation is necessary.

 

But I guess TDs aren't allowed to do that kind of thing.

[aguahombre]

This is the kind of thread that makes me glad I'm not a TD. And probably other players too :P

 

To me the ruling is absolutely obvious: two tricks to the defense, retain deposit if appealed, and pp to declarer if he bugs me about it. I wouldn't even think a law citation is necessary.

 

But I guess TDs aren't allowed to do that kind of thing.

Almost. I would allow the opponent to choose; and if he is dumb enough to choose wrong, give the declarer his trick :rolleyes:

[sfi]

I think you are reading things into both formulations of word that aren't necessarily there. Just because one is rapid in devolving responsibility for choice, or describes the choices as "anything", doesn't mean that all options are equivalent. Just because one is slow or indecisive in choosing, or uses the word "choice", doesn't mean there is any practical difference. In myth, Buridan's ass starved because it was slow to choose between two equally attractive sources of food.

 

And even if one can deduce reasons for declarer's indecisiveness from his wording, it just doesn't seem relevant. It seems clear to me that the essence of 46B5 is that declarer is instructing someone else to choose, nothing else.

 

And I think you're playing unnecessary word games when the law is quite clear that it refers to intention. But when people start arguing over subtleties in the dictionary I tend to lose interest.

 

Basically, you are going to rule in a way that reduces declarer's chance from 50% to 0%, when declarer has actually demonstrated that he knows it's a 50% guess. Law 46B5 is for when declarer demonstrates that he believes that the choice of card is irrelevant. This is contrary to the intention stated in the introduction to the laws (and yes, I know the word "primarily" is in there and that the introduction has no force of law), and is simply not needed.

[gnasher]

But I don't think "play anything" implies a deliberate choice.

Which I never said. What I said was, that it implied precisely nothing about how the player should act to select a card.

OK, so if "play one, your choice" implies a deliberate choice, and "play anything" does not, their meanings are different.

 

You also seemed to agree that "choose one" does not imply a deliberate choice either. He only said "choose", not what kind of a choice.

I don't know when you think I implied that, but I certanly didn't intend to say that.

 

I'm delighted you had a high quality dictionary to hand and confirmed our advice that choose can mean "make a selection".

Er no, what I quoted tells us that a meaning of "choose" is "make a selection; exercise choice (between, from)".

Each numbered item in a dictionary entry constitutes a single meaning. Or it does in my dictionary, anyway.

[barmar]

I have had both variants, from probably the same correspondent, but as I wrote here: With Clubs as the suit in question, not Spades nor Diamonds. Not that this really matters at all.

What about Barry Crane's rule (the queen is over the jack in minors, under it in majors)? Or is that only applicable to 2-way finesses?

[blackshoe]

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.

[barmar]

Maybe we should start a thread in the Changing Laws forum. Wouldn't it be nice and simple if the law said that in the case where declarer says something to this effect, dummy shall play the lowest card in the suit that was led, or in the lowest ranking suit if he cannot follow suit?

 

But I think the intent of 46B5 is pretty obvious: if declarer doesn't want to make a decision, the opponents are allowed to. Dummy is explicitly prohibited from making decisions for declarer.

 

Most of the time when declarer says "play anything", it really doesn't matter -- dummy is dead. Even though 46B5 says that an opponent should select the card, they don't bother because they can also see that it doesn't matter. But the purpose of that clause in 46B5 is to handle the case where declarer makes a mistake -- he thinks it doesn't matter, but it does. The opponents are permitted to take advantage of this and get the best result.

 

This also reinforces the law that dummy can't participate. Suppose dummy ALSO realizes that declarer made a mistake, and knows which card is best -- he's not allowed to exercise that judgement.

 

Now, the case in this thread is not quite like the usual "play anything" situation. It's not "it doesn't matter", it's "I have no way of knowing." But again, the obvious intent of 46B5 is that if declarer gives up his right to make the decision, it goes to the defenders.

[campboy]

Indeed. Personally I'm quite comfortable with the idea that I speak the language of the OED rather than that of your Scrabble Word Book. I'm also unsurprised to learn that I speak better English than the average Internet-user.

My point was that in general parlance it is demonstrably not abnormal to use "choice" in the sense of "free selection by any manner", so it is hardly incontrovertible that declarer meant something else.