"Play One"

[Phil]

I have an infrequent partner that has developed what I think is a bad habit.

 

After the opening lead, and she is declaring and wants to play small from dummy she announces, 'play one'.

 

Is this tantamount to the situation where a declarer is near the end of the hand, and dummy's cards are immaterial and announces, "play anything", and the defenders can choose?

[campboy]

The relevant law is 46B5:

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.

Note, however, that this does not apply "when declarer's different intention is incontovertible", whatever that means. I suppose it is sufficiently obvious that she doesn't really mean "play anything".

[billw55]

"Play" by itself, in ACBL land, is well known slang for smallest in the suit. "Play one" I am not sure about.

[lalldonn]

"Play" by itself, in ACBL land, is well known slang for smallest in the suit. "Play one" I am not sure about.

"One" in this context means "one of the suit being played". I think a defender who tries to get them to play anything but the smallest of the suit led when declarer says "play one" needs to get a life. I wouldn't have even thought this was unclear or controversial.

[nige1]

"One" in this context means "one of the suit being played". I think a defender who tries to get them to play anything but the smallest of the suit led when declarer says "play one" needs to get a life. I wouldn't have even thought this was unclear or controversial.

This is a fast track to chaos. IMO, bridge-rules should be the same for all and uniformly enforced -- or they should be changed. IMO, the rule about the correct way to designate a card from dummy is simple and clear. In most circumstances, there is no reason to waive it.

[Cyberyeti]

I think this is the same as saying "spade" when a spade is led and is understood to be the smallest one.

[lalldonn]

This is a fast track to chaos. IMO, rules should be the same for all and uniformly enforced -- or they should be changed. IMO, the rule about the correct way to designate a card from dummy is simple and clear. There is no obvious reason to waive it for a non-mute declarer.

How incredibly chaotic, a world where the card everyone at the table knows declarer wants played from dummy is the one that gets played! Every table should come equipped with a lifeguard and fire extinguisher to help deal with the chaos.

[blackshoe]

"If 'everyone knows' such-and-such, then it ain't so." -- Robert A. Heinlein

 

Law 46A: When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should [my emphasis - ER] clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

Introduction to the Laws: Established usage has been retained in regard to … “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction [my emphasis - ER] jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized) …

"Play one", like "play" is improper procedure. "Everybody knows" what these phrases mean because players rarely try to change the card when dummy puts a low one in the played position. I'm not going to argue with those who think this is "obvious", even thought they're wrong. B-) It's just not worth the effort. What I will do, if I'm ever called to rule on this scenario, is find out what declarer really intended, read Law 46A to the table, and explain that this is the only proper way to designate a card from dummy. Then I will explain that Law 46B informs the TD (and players) how to interpret the myriad ways in which declarers seem to infringe this law, and that in this case, I consider "play one" or "play" to be very close to falling under 46B5, which would give either defender the right to designate the play from dummy,

 

IOW, on this particular breach of law, I'm not going to fight the tide, in spite of the fact that what declarer said falls, imo, under 46B5, even though "everybody knows" he didn't mean it. Not at club level, anyway.

 

Law 46B5: 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.

[barmar]

Is this deja vu? Didn't we have an identical thread about a year or so ago?

 

I think it may have been about players who just say "play". Can we agree that "play" and "play one" are similar enough that we don't have to hash out all the arguments again?

[campboy]

I think this is the same as saying "spade" when a spade is led and is understood to be the smallest one.

It's different because saying "spade" puts us in 46B2 territory: "If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated."

 

:ph34r:

 

Anyway, law 46 says that declarer is not bound by the restrictions (of B1-B5) when her different intention is incontrovertible. So we need to decide whether that is the case, and since that is a matter of judgement we may well decide differently.

 

I got the impression that the OP was specifically talking about saying "play one" at trick 1 and in that case it is hardly conceivable that declarer really didn't mind which card was played, unless they are equals or near-equals. If declarer says "play one" later in the hand she might well mean it and so I imagine I would allow either defender to designate the play.

[Cyberyeti]

It's different because saying "spade" puts us in 46B2 territory: "If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated."

 

That was what I meant, that one is clarified, this one isn't but IMO the intent is taken as being the same.

[blackshoe]

That was what I meant, that one is clarified, this one isn't but IMO the intent is taken as being the same.

After investigation, maybe. Not automatically.

[Cyberyeti]

After investigation, maybe. Not automatically.

At trick one I'd say pretty much automatically. About the only situation where I might rule otherwise was if dummy was laid out incorrectly with a number of equivalent cards and a non equivalent among one of the other suits.

[blackshoe]

<shrug> You're entitled to an opinion. B-)

[Vampyr]

This is a fast track to chaos. IMO, bridge-rules should be the same for all and uniformly enforced -- or they should be changed. IMO, the rule about the correct way to designate a card from dummy is simple and clear. In most circumstances, there is no reason to waive it.

 

Well, few people make complete designations all of the time, so perhaps it is best for bridge not to exist.

[Siegmund]

The defender who names the card he wants played may indeed need to get a life -- but the card he names is the card that's going to get played. It's abundantly clear to me that "play one" means declarer doesn't care which one. I think it's quite distinct from "play" - a mannerism I find very offensive, but do understand to be the equivalent of "small" or "[suitname]".

 

I just wish dummies would be familiar enough with the rules of the game that when I, as a defender, legally name a card when declarer doesn't, they'd reach for it, rather than just laughing and reaching for something else and making me call the director.

 

Incidentally, one of my longtime partners and I discussed "play anything" and had (what we considered to be) an actively ethical agreement to always discard the highest card from dummy when the other called for "play anything" at the end of the hand.

[Vampyr]

The defender who names the card he wants played may indeed need to get a life -- but the card he names is the card that's going to get played. It's abundantly clear to me that "play one" means declarer doesn't care which one. I think it's quite distinct from "play" - a mannerism I find very offensive, but do understand to be the equivalent of "small" or "[suitname]".

 

 

I don't find "play" offensive, but I do find it intensely annoving. One time I played with an American who had this mannerism. He was a friend, and I wanted it to remain that way after the session, so every time he did it I asked him "which one?" until he stopped.

 

I don't know whether I think that "play one" indicates no preference. It sounds like it, but don't we all really know that this is just an affected way of saying "small" or "spade" or whatever? It seems like a hard-core splinter group of the "play" faction, who are way too cool to indicate even so much as the suit or the size of the desired card.

[mjj29]

I don't understand the people who genuinely think that declarer doesn't care which one is played (unless they are all functionally equivalent, in which case it doesn't matter either). Surely it's completely obvious that he intends to play small in the suit led?

 

Edit: Sure, he may not have been great at communicating it _as the laws say_ and you may not like that he's chosen to do it that way, but it's clear what he _means_

[barmar]

Found the earlier thread: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/49653-play/

[mycroft]

Odd. I have different meanings from most printed here for these mannerisms.

 

"Play" - I rarely use, I use "small" instead.

"Play one" - dummy has 987.

"Always falsecard from dummy - Jack, please" - from JT.

"Pick one" or "your choice" - dummy has a singleton.

"Play anything" - I've claimed, and they've objected, and the TD has forced me to play it out against the Laws.

 

If partner says "play anything", I play the potentially most damaging card. If the opponents say "play anything" (usually because they could claim, but they're wasting my time because once they got ruled against in a defective claim, so they never will again, *and* annoying me with the obvious "the play doesn't matter" attitude), I insist on my L46B5 rights. Oddly, declarers tend to take offence to that. What possible problem could there be?

[pran]

Odd. I have different meanings from most printed here for these mannerisms.

 

"Play" - I rarely use, I use "small" instead.

"Play one" - dummy has 987.

"Always falsecard from dummy - Jack, please" - from JT.

"Pick one" or "your choice" - dummy has a singleton.

"Play anything" - I've claimed, and they've objected, and the TD has forced me to play it out against the Laws.

 

If partner says "play anything", I play the potentially most damaging card. If the opponents say "play anything" (usually because they could claim, but they're wasting my time because once they got ruled against in a defective claim, so they never will again, *and* annoying me with the obvious "the play doesn't matter" attitude), I insist on my L46B5 rights. Oddly, declarers tend to take offence to that. What possible problem could there be?

Maybe:

A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

This law works both ways. B-)

[mycroft]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. They say "play anything", I exercise my rights under law, politely but expecting to be obeyed, and they are suddenly offended. What they think they mean by "play anything" is "dummy play something obviously safe".

 

I will admit that I'm a bit passive agressive (see the first statement), but they're not claiming, but they don't seem to care about dummy. If I think I care about dummy, what should I do that won't offend?

[pran]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. They say "play anything", I exercise my rights under law, politely but expecting to be obeyed, and they are suddenly offended. What they think they mean by "play anything" is "dummy play something obviously safe".

 

I will admit that I'm a bit passive agressive (see the first statement), but they're not claiming, but they don't seem to care about dummy. If I think I care about dummy, what should I do that won't offend?

If you insist in a manner that causes annoyance . . . . . ?

[Vampyr]

If you insist in a manner that causes annoyance . . . . . ?

 

All that is necessary is to call the director and explain the problem politely. Why assume mycroft does something other than that?

[pran]

All that is necessary is to call the director and explain the problem politely. Why assume mycroft does something other than that?

Quite true.

But if opponents become annoyed when he insists then either it is for a real reason in which case he should change his manner, or it is unjust in which case the Director should explain the relevant law(s) to his opponenets.