Play!

[aguahombre]

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.

Your whole post, from which I only quoted one sentence, is on topic and right-on; even though I still will insert my little campaign against "Play", on occasion.

 

However, off-topic a bit, is the fact that there are two types of Secretary Bird situations. And TD's can really only deal with the type discussed in this thread.

 

TD's around the world are hamstrung when SB's use the wording of regulations to get away with stuff, such as non-disclosure.

[Zelandakh]

I think I've noticed that my regular partner says "play" (or "play it") when it's a singleton.

And I often say "Yes please" to ask for a singleton to be played. Is anyone going to be offended by this too. However, the worst suggestion in this thread by far has come from Wayne - a diamond is led and dummy has the HQ and the DQ - declarer calls for the queen. Since dummy cannot revoke it is clear which card has been called for. If partner asked which more than once I would be inclined to tell them to try using their brain once in a while and pay attention to the game.

[barmar]

And I often say "Yes please" to ask for a singleton to be played. Is anyone going to be offended by this too. However, the worst suggestion in this thread by far has come from Wayne - a diamond is led and dummy has the HQ and the DQ - declarer calls for the queen. Since dummy cannot revoke it is clear which card has been called for. If partner asked which more than once I would be inclined to tell them to try using their brain once in a while and pay attention to the game.

46B3b seems clear on that case. It says dummy must play "a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so". He can't play ♥Q legally, so must play ♦Q.

[Zelandakh]

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

 

46B3b seems clear on that case. It says dummy must play "a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so". He can't play ♥Q legally, so must play ♦Q.

That is precisely the point. The phrase "Which queen?" here is completely superfluous since "Queen" is a perfectly legal and complete designation. Similarly "Play" or "Yes, please" are complete designations when dummy has a singleton in the suit led. If it is universally understood to have that meaning in a given club (it is not around here afaik), "Play" [the smallest] is a complete designation for any lead where dummy can follow suit in the same way as "Diamond" is an adequate designation for "Smallest diamond" without any further requirement for a specific rank designation.

[blackshoe]

You're overlooking, I think, the fact that the only legally correct designation is "queen of diamonds" (see Law 46A). Any other designation is by law incomplete or erroneous. Yes, even if a diamond is led.

[axman]

You're overlooking, I think, the fact that the only legally correct designation is "queen of diamonds" (see Law 46A). Any other designation is by law incomplete or erroneous. Yes, even if a diamond is led.

 

A more accurate depiction includes "diamond queen" when speaking of "the only".

[blackshoe]

A more accurate depiction includes "diamond queen" when speaking of "the only".

 

Sheesh. Pedant much?

[CSGibson]

reviving somewhat an older discussion - but at one point when I was playing a few years ago, a partner of mine told me that if I actually named a specific rank and designation (spade eight!), that it was easier for opponents to remember the spot cards which were in dummy. Since then, I've gotten in the habit of calling cards in an umambiguous way, but without specifically naming the spot used.

[gnasher]

reviving somewhat an older discussion - but at one point when I was playing a few years ago, a partner of mine told me that if I actually named a specific rank and designation (spade eight!), that it was easier for opponents to remember the spot cards which were in dummy. Since then, I've gotten in the habit of calling cards in an umambiguous way, but without specifically naming the spot used.

 

You should get out of that habit immediately. Law 46A begins "When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card."

 

If you break this law out of laziness or ignorance, that's no big deal. But, now that you know that it's against the rules, doing so in order to gain an advantage would be a big deal.

 

Edit: Perhaps I should add that, like everyone I know, I break this law all the time. However, I don't believe that it brings me any advantage. In matters of this sort, intent is important.

Edited June 6, 2012 by gnasher

[RMB1]

reviving somewhat an older discussion - but at one point when I was playing a few years ago, a partner of mine told me that if I actually named a specific rank and designation (spade eight!), that it was easier for opponents to remember the spot cards which were in dummy. Since then, I've gotten in the habit of calling cards in an umambiguous way, but without specifically naming the spot used.

 

I don't get this at all. At bridge the only things you do that should be to your advantage should be your choice of calls and plays. Everything else: how you make your calls or plays, now you explain, how you interact with the opponents, etc. should not disadvantage your opponents; and in most cases should err on the side of being helpful to the opponents.

[CSGibson]

You should get out of that habit immediately. Law 46A begins "When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card."

 

If you break this law out of laziness or ignorance, that's no big deal. But, now that you know that it's against the rules, doing so in order to gain an advantage would be a big deal.

 

Edit: Perhaps I should add that, like everyone I know, I break this law all the time. However, I don't believe that it brings me any advantage. In matters of this sort, intent is important.

 

Thank you. I hadn't really thought of it since adopting the habit several years ago, except thinking that if I have a choice in how to designate cards with the only consideration being that one makes it easy for opponents, and one harder, then I should make the choice that makes it harder for the opponents (like I would in choice of bidding decisions where partner is minimally impacted). I was not fully aware that the way to designate a call is legally stated, but if I was aware of that, I would have been very uncomfortable with the "advice" I was given, and it would have changed my thinking completely.

 

To Robin - In the flight A GNT trials this year, we had a young woman on our team that purposely dressed provocatively in hopes of distracting horn-dog male opponent X, and when we had seating rights, we sat her against him. Would you consider that unethical, distasteful, smart, funny, some combination of the above?

[mycroft]

The one I consistently do is "top X" and "X eight-spot" - knowing it violates the Law. It's still better than the correct alternative.

 

I violate this Law all the time, as does everyone else except Blackshoe; unambiguously, of course.

 

CSG "to Robin": "Yes."

 

I tell the story of one partner I had, 4'10", 25-but-looked-16, and terminally cute. She dressed well - not provocatively, but her style complimented her looks. That was worth at least half-a-board a round every round we hit a married couple; either because the husband was looking more at my partner than his cards, or because the wife was looking more at her husband to make sure he wasn't looking than at her cards. Of course, the fact that she looked like she did was worth a fair bit outside of that, too - did I mention that she was a high school biology teacher and smart as a whip (and made the beer (and won the match) in a Midnight playing against Meckstroth)? It's amazing how underestimated she usually was.

 

Me? Hey, I'm not *allowed* to look at my partner when we have cards in our hands. How could I be distracted?

[paua]

46B3b seems clear on that case. It says dummy must play "a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so". He can't play ♥Q legally, so must play ♦Q.

 

I understood Wayne's ambiguous Queen call to be in a situation where dummy was on lead. If "Queen" is called then it is by Law the queen from the last suit played (and won in dummy). If ambiguous, the Laws specify that declarer must clarify. This is not a good habit to get into.

 

To me "Play" means "play anything", and the defenders can choose the legal card. Maybe this is a New Zealand thing. Wayne has more experience than me, but I have never heard "play" in New Zealand. "Yup" or "Thanks" common.

 

I would also like to add the phrase "diamond AWAY" to the discussion. This is used by a few people when discarding from dummy. Does it specify the lowest diamond, or can the defenders choose the diamond ?

[blackshoe]

I think the defenders should call the director. Law 46B2 applies:

If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated.

[mjj29]

I think the defenders should call the director. Law 46B2 applies:

Next you're going to try and stop me calling for "The Beer Card".

[blackshoe]

Am I? Are you sure?

[mycroft]

To me "Play" means "play anything", and the defenders can choose the legal card. Maybe this is a New Zealand thing. Wayne has more experience than me, but I have never heard "play" in New Zealand. "Yup" or "Thanks" common.

Check Law 46B5. Not just a "New Zealand" thing - but boy do people here take umbrage when I take advantage of that rule (which I try to always do - "play anything" means either that dummy is irrelevant in the pseudosqueeze (almost never), or declarer should be claiming (almost always), or what declarer actually means is "play anything except the ♥K, which should be obvious", (rarely) - in which case an introduction to the Laws is in order).