Play!

[blackshoe]

Good, since that would be a really bad example. ;)

 

Rik

 

It would, huh? Please explain.

[aguahombre]

Good, since that would be a really bad example. ;)

 

Rik

specifying the suit and denomination each time might be a bad example on your planet, rik. On mine it is a good one.

[AlexJonson]

It is obviously a cultural thing.

 

As dummy I would not respond to 'Play!', since I've never used the term, nor seen it used by anyone else.

 

A single interloper in my circle would not change my habit, but if it became very common, I'd have to adjust my bidding style to that of the Hideous Hog, and make sure I wasn't Dummy.

[Trinidad]

It would, huh? Please explain.

It´s always bad to explain a joke (and then it was probably not a good joke), but since you asked...

 

If the leader dies that would be a pretty bad example to follow...

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Good, since that would be a really bad example. ;)

 

Rik

 

 

specifying the suit and denomination each time might be a bad example on your planet, rik. On mine it is a good one.

I thought it was obvious that that was not the example I was talking about.

 

Dying, however, would not be good example to follow. But, as Alex points out (in a different context): It is obviously a cultural thing.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

If it was a good joke, I probably would have understood it. B-)

 

Besides, everybody follows the "dying" example, sooner or later. :P

[Cascade]

The correct way to play a card is to designate a suit and rank - L46A. Other designations are infractions. Most of Law 46 is about how to deal with improper designations such as "low", "play" etc.

 

Law 46B5 covers precisely what is to happen when a declarer indicates a play without designating either suit or rank. Either defender has the right to choose the card played.

[bluejak]

However, since it is known what is meant by "play" it is not a matter for the defenders to choose as a matter of Law.

[Cascade]

However, since it is known what is meant by "play" it is not a matter for the defenders to choose as a matter of Law.

 

Disagree.

 

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.

Law 46B5

 

'play' seems to be "words of like meaning" to 'play anything'.

 

'play' also "indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank".

 

Given that there can be no reason not to apply the law.

[aguahombre]

However, since it is known what is meant by "play" it is not a matter for the defenders to choose as a matter of Law.

You are probably correct as a practical matter; but it is not known by me what is meant by "play". I won't try to invoke the silliness that I get to choose what card is played, but there is no law which authorizes or encourages the use of the term, and I will never concede what it allegedly means; will patiently wait for a card to be actually played and give declarer time to negate the "play" before falling for it.

 

When they eventually realize that I don't know what card was called for, they might get the point. :rolleyes:

[RMB1]

Disagree.

 

Law 46B5

Disagree. :)

 

Law 46B: "(except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible)"

 

If "everyone" knows what "play" means, then declarer's intention is incontrovertibly different from "play anything".

[Cascade]

Disagree. :)

 

Law 46B: "(except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible)"

 

If "everyone" knows what "play" means, then declarer's intention is incontrovertibly different from "play anything".

 

That is a big "if".

 

I don't see how from the one word 'play' you can determine an incontrovertible intention.

[RMB1]

That is a big "if".

Not round here, I think it is universally understood where I play and direct.

 

I don't see how from the one word 'play' you can determine an incontrovertible intention.

 

I think there are many places where bridge is played where "play" is used and is understood to not mean the same as "play anything"; and I think that in many places where it is so understood, it would be peverse to rule that the difference was not incontrovertible.

[Cascade]

Even if one can be convinced of that, and I am not so sure, the practice of saying "play" should be discouraged given that it is contrary to the laws.

[blackshoe]

So are all the other forms of calling for a card listed in Law 46B.

[Cascade]

Indeed and they are discouraged as well by the use of the word "should" in 46A.

 

Perhaps they can be tolerated when they are unambiguous. The fact that there is a provision to resolve incomplete disignations whether ambiguous or not does not make it any more acceptable to use those incomplete designations.

 

It is lazy and discourteous to call "five" because the laws will resolve the ambiguity the way you intend. When this happens the opponents "should" call the director since an infraction has occurred (L9B1a). I imagine that directors would be less tolerant if they were properly called when these infractions occur.

 

'play anything' seems tautological to me in that 'anything' doesn't add anything to the meaning of 'play' and neither does 'play' add anything to the meaning of 'anything'. An unqualified 'play' is simply an instruction to play a card without designating the suit or rank much the same as 'anything' designates neither a suit or rank.

 

Further I think that it is improper for dummy to move a card into a played provision when the card has not been designated properly. Certainly this is the case when there is ambiguity. For all dummy knows declarer could have been intending (incontrovertibly) another card of the same rank or suit or just some other card when the instruction is silent on the suit or rank. Playing what seems obvious to dummy could possibly be construed as trying to influence declarer. At times the influence is obvious. For example declarer says "diamond" and dummy pulls the top diamond. When a top diamond is necessary to win or force out a higher diamond. Just as with 'play' declarer might have had an intention and might not - this is hardly incontrovertible.

 

My partners are used to me waiting for a complete designation or occasionally me asking "Which queen?"

[Vampyr]

My partners are used to me waiting for a complete designation or occasionally me asking "Which queen?"

 

Gosh, if I were playing with you I think I would send you to the bar every time you were dummy and play the cards myself.

[aguahombre]

Gosh, if I were playing with you I think I would send you to the bar every time you were dummy and play the cards myself.

Perhaps if he were playing with you or me, he would go to the bar quite frequently without our insistance.

[Cascade]

Gosh, if I were playing with you I think I would send you to the bar every time you were dummy and play the cards myself.

 

Because I believe it is improper for dummy to suggest a play?

[Bbradley62]

I imagine that directors would be less tolerant if they were properly called when these infractions occur.

I imagine that directors would become less tolerant of those who repeatedly called them to report such nonsense.

[Cascade]

I imagine that directors would become less tolerant of those who repeatedly called them to report such nonsense.

 

That wouldn't seem reasonable given that the laws state that the director "should" be called.

 

You seem to want the laws to say something they don't.

[barmar]

So you really think the intent is that the director should be called whenever there's an incomplete designation, so he can decide which card to play based on 46B?

 

As I mentioned earlier, I've never heard anyone use "play" except when dummy is following suit. So the part of 46B5 about not specifying a suit seems vacuous, since the suit is implied. So effectively declarer has only omitted the rank, which makes 46B2 the Law to apply.

[Cascade]

So you really think the intent is that the director should be called whenever there's an incomplete designation, so he can decide which card to play based on 46B?

 

It seems pretty clear

 

“should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not

often penalized)

 

then see L46A and L9B1a.

 

Pay particular attention to the use of "should".

[blackshoe]

46B exists because, I suspect, it has always been very common for declarers to violate 46A. When it is clear that a particular provision of 46B applies, there should really be no need to call the TD, although doing so is perfectly legal. However, when there is any doubt at all in the mind of any player what's going on, calling the TD is definitely the thing to do, because it is up to him, not the players, which part of 46B to apply.

[bluejak]

There is no doubt a certain type of person, personified by Victor Mollo in the form of the Secretary Bird, whose complete and utter dependence on following rules to the letter seems perfectly reasonable to him, and makes him a complete pain in the behind to everyone else. Such people are part of the reason why bridge is less popular than it might be.

 

Fortunately, the aim of these forums is not to try and make bridge less enjoyable for the majority, but to run bridge in a reasonable fashion. Also fortunately, the WBFLC, for all their other faults, also seem to have realised this, not including automatic penalties for stupid little infractions of Law.

 

Fortunately also TDs around the world are more interested in running a reasonable game of bridge and not encouraging the Secretary Birds of this world to destroy the game.

 

As a matter of Law, if a player’s designation is understood, then it stands, whether Secretary Birds like it or not. Since people say "play" to mean play the lowest card, then their intention is incontrovertible when they do, so as a matter of law the lowest card has been asked for.