Incontrovertible

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq76hak943da84caq&w=sk432ht5dqjt5c964&n=sjt8hqj62dk62ct83&e=sa95h87d973ckj752&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1hp3c(6-9%2C%20four%20hearts)p4hppp]399|300[/hv]

Teams; Contract 4♥ by South. Lead Q♦

Another thread "play one" reminded me of the above hand, with average players at a local club. West led the ♦Q and declarer won, drew trumps and led a spade towards dummy. When West played low, declarer said "any" and East, who behaves like the Secretary Bird, pounced and requested the eight be played. The TD had to decide whether declarer's incontrovertible intention was to play the ten or jack. SB argued that declarer might not have noticed the nine was missing, and therefore the eight had to be played. How would you rule, and would you try to apply the Law if you were East?

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq76hak943da84caq&w=sk432ht5dqjt5c964&n=sjt8hqj62dk62ct83&e=sa95h87d973ckj752&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1hp3c(6-9%2C%20four%20hearts)p4hppp]399|300|

Lamford asks "Teams; Contract 4♥ by South. Lead Q♦.

Another thread "play one" reminded me of the above hand, with average players at a local club. West led the ♦Q and declarer won, drew trumps and led a spade towards dummy. When West played low, declarer said "any" and East, who behaves like the Secretary Bird, pounced and requested the eight be played. The TD had to decide whether declarer's incontrovertible intention was to play the ten or jack. SB argued that declarer might not have noticed the nine was missing, and therefore the eight had to be played. How would you rule, and would you try to apply the Law if you were East?"

 

 

:) Happy to provide the minority view :)

1. Declarer could render his intention incontrovertible (and save a lot of pointless hassle) by complying with the law.

2. You (East) should call attention to the infraction (especially at teams).

3. After attention has been drawn to an infraction, you should call the director.

4. The director should rule in your favour.

5. Failing that the director might consider a procedural penalty for declarer

6. If the director rules in your favour, you might ask the director to waive his ruling, depending on circumstances.

7. (Ancipating a likely put-down), If you really want a life, consider another pastime :)[/hv]

[Cyberyeti]

I'm with East if declarer is that careless (IMO beyond the definition of careless), however if he'd merely claimed and said taking the club finesse, making if it works, one off if it doesn't I'd give it to him so that is why I'd say it's beyond careless. If he said "either" rather than "any" might be more interesting as it suggests only 2 choices in his mind.

[c_corgi]

East's "pounce" has made it rather difficult to establish declarers original intention. If East had waited until dummy had moved the 8 into the played position, then declarer would either have been content, or said "Not that one!" and all would be clear. If dummy did something other than move the 8 into the played position I would have little sympathy with N/S.

 

Anyway, I ask declarer what he was doing and why he used that form of designation. Unless he is extremely convincing I rule in favour of East. Perhaps one of the "{East} Could have known that his behaviour might jeopardise opponents rights" type clauses applies to this situation?

 

1. Declarer could render his intention incontrovertible (and save a lot of pointless hassle) by complying with the law.

Very true.

5. Failing that the director might consider a procedural penalty for declarer

Steady on...

[PeterAlan]

If required, I would rule in East's favour. What I would do as East might depend on the state of the match, and whether N/S have been pleasant opponents or otherwise. If declarer is this careless, I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to take advantage.

 

It seems to me that interesting variants arise

 

1. if S says "either" rather than "any" - intention then?
   
2. if S says "any spade" - E/W are not able to designate the play in these circumstances, but Law 46B2 requires the lowest spade be played. Imagine a 3-card NT endgame position where N's ♠ were AQ2, E's were KJ10, and S led a ♠ up calling for "any spade".
   

[billw55]

This is a total non-argument. Any means any. The 8 is played, end of discussion.

[lamford]

[*]if S says "any spade" - E/W are not able to designate the play in these circumstances, but Law 46B2 requires the lowest spade be played.<snip>

All of 46B is qualified by "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". There is an example from Ton Kooiman, I think in the White Book, where declarer had KJx in dummy opposite xx in hand and said "any". He was deemed to mean "either the king or the jack". In your interesting case of AQx opposite xxx in a 3-card endgame, with KJ10 over the AQx, it seems that whether he specifies the suit matters, and this does not make sense as dummy has to follow suit. So "any spade" does indeed require the small one, while just "any" allows the opponents to choose. Always assuming that the TD does not decide declarer's intention is incontrovertible. And if the small card works as East has to overtake I guess we have to rule against declarer ...

 

In this example, if dummy had J102 in spades, I think that it would be incontrovertible that he intended to play the ten or jack, but with J108 ...

[wyman]

Along these lines:

 

Suppose declarer is cashing winners from hand and that it is unclear to the defense whether or not dummy is dead. At some point declarer cashes a trump and says to dummy "play anything." Now suppose that one or the other defender pipes up and asks for a specific card to be played from dummy (or calls the director first and proceeds to ask that a specific card be played from dummy). What are the UI implications now if the partner of the defender who specified the card gains the lead?

[aguahombre]

Wyman: Are you suggesting that a player excercising his legitimate right might create a UI situation for his side, after Declarer caused the problem to begin with?

 

Maybe it does, but I sure hope not. Perhaps one of the designated sticklers could answer your question.

[barmar]

Did this really happen, or is this another hypothetical? I can't believe a real declarer would say "any" when it clearly matters whether dummy plays the 8 or one of J10. Only misreading the 8 as a 9 would explain this.

 

I'm also not enamored of the KJx example in the OB. If declarer said "either" rather than "any", I would be OK interpreting this as choosing among the honors -- the word "either" implies a choice among exactly 2 options, and it's obvious which these should be (it's a guess whether to finesse K or J). But "any" suggests that all options are equal.

[aguahombre]

In the KJX example, it better not matter whether dummy plays the king or the jack. Otherwise dummy is being invited to participate in the play of the hand. If it does matter, the defenders get to choose.

[wyman]

Wyman: Are you suggesting that a player excercising his legitimate right might create a UI situation for his side, after Declarer caused the problem to begin with?

 

Maybe it does, but I sure hope not. Perhaps one of the designated sticklers could answer your question.

 

I'm just asking hypothetically. If I would have faced a guess, but my partner designated a card to be played from dummy, am I constrained? What if partner _fails_ to designate a card from dummy and just allows dummy to play small in one of the suits? Can I take inference, knowing that my partner is on his/her game all the time, and if (s)he saw a reason to play another card, (s)he would have required it?

[blackshoe]

It is information arising from the legal procedures specified in the laws, so it's authorized (Law 16A1{c}).

[wyman]

Thanks.

[iviehoff]

All of 46B is qualified by "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". There is an example from Ton Kooiman, I think in the White Book, where declarer had KJx in dummy opposite xx in hand and said "any". He was deemed to mean "either the king or the jack".

You misquote Ton in a significant way. In Ton's example, declarer actually thought for a while and then said "I don't know, play one". I think it is that very specific context that allows Ton to conclude declarer incontrovertibly meant "one of the two honours". If instead declarer had just quickly said "any", I don't think that incontrovertible conclusion remains available, rather alternative explanations are available. He may have come to the erroneous conclusion that AQ is likely lying over the KJ, and thus it really doesn't matter. Or he may have miscounted his tricks and think that two down is unlikely much different from one down, so it doesn't much matter for that reason.

 

When declarer says "any" meaning "any", and in fact it makes a difference, declarer has either made a mistake, or else lost interest. In such cases, rare as they are, I have no scruple in requesting the losing play, as some others have said above.

[lamford]

You misquote Ton in a significant way. In Ton's example, declarer actually thought for a while and then said "I don't know, play one". I think it is that very specific context that allows Ton to conclude declarer incontrovertibly meant "one of the two honours". If instead declarer had just quickly said "any", I don't think that incontrovertible conclusion remains available, rather alternative explanations are available.

The EBU county director course gave a similar example where declarer just said "any", and I thought declarer could be required to play a low card, but I now agree I was wrong in that belief. If dummy's spades in this example had been J102, I would have ruled that he was not required to play the two, as his intention to play the jack or ten was incontrovertible. Ton argues that playing the jack or king in the example he gave is the only sensible line to make the contract and to play low is not reasonable. In this example, playing the eight is only reasonable if you are under the mistaken belief that you have the nine. You could equally validly argue that it is "completely obvious South is going to play the jack or ten to fulfil his contract, or to give himself a chance to do so".

[EricK]

I'm with East if declarer is that careless (IMO beyond the definition of careless), however if he'd merely claimed and said taking the club finesse, making if it works, one off if it doesn't I'd give it to him so that is why I'd say it's beyond careless. If he said "either" rather than "any" might be more interesting as it suggests only 2 choices in his mind.

"Either" in this position seems to me to be the same as "any". He does have only two real choices - high or low - since the T and J are equals.

 

As an aside, why does anybody ever not specify the card by name when dummy is following suit? Every card name is one syllable long (OK, except the 7), so saying "low" or "top" saves no time, and saying "either" or "any" or "it doesn't matter" costs time!

[sfi]

As an aside, why does anybody ever not specify the card by name when dummy is following suit? Every card name is one syllable long (OK, except the 7), so saying "low" or "top" saves no time, and saying "either" or "any" or "it doesn't matter" costs time!

 

It's a lot easier for the opponents to remember spot cards when you call for them by name, rather than 'small'.

[aguahombre]

It's a lot easier for the opponents to remember spot cards when you call for them by name, rather than 'small'.

Translation: While all the others are innocently breaking the rules out of laziness, habit, or just thinking it is stylish, the person to which you refer is breaking them for advantage.

Edited January 10, 2013 by aguahombre

[sfi]

Translation: While all the others are innocently breaking the rules out of laziness, habit, or just thinking it is stylish, the person to which you refer is breaking them for advantage.

 

You teach everyone else to call the cards and I'll play along with them. In the meantime, I'm just saying why people do it. This is common practice I've heard talked about for decades.

Edited January 11, 2013 by sfi

[billw55]

The EBU county director course gave a similar example where declarer just said "any", and I thought declarer could be required to play a low card, but I now agree I was wrong in that belief. If dummy's spades in this example had been J102, I would have ruled that he was not required to play the two, as his intention to play the jack or ten was incontrovertible. Ton argues that playing the jack or king in the example he gave is the only sensible line to make the contract and to play low is not reasonable. In this example, playing the eight is only reasonable if you are under the mistaken belief that you have the nine. You could equally validly argue that it is "completely obvious South is going to play the jack or ten to fulfil his contract, or to give himself a chance to do so".

IMO this is completely absurd. Any means any! What on earth else could it possibly mean? It is 10000% obvious that "any" falls under law 46 B5. Any other ruling is a total joke and frankly, a disgrace to the game (again, IMO).

 

I could live with "either", although "top" is in fact easier to say.

 

edit: in fact, if the example happened as I understand - a guess from KJx - then "either" is also unacceptable, because it invites dummy to make a decision that matters. Defender should be able to choose which honor is played.

[barmar]

As an aside, why does anybody ever not specify the card by name when dummy is following suit? Every card name is one syllable long (OK, except the 7), so saying "low" or "top" saves no time, and saying "either" or "any" or "it doesn't matter" costs time!

I think it's more of a mental effort issue than time. "Low" and "high" mirror the way you're thinking about the play -- you're rarely concerned about the specific card among equivalents. It takes more thought to translate from your concept of "just play some immaterial little card" to "play the 3".

 

Of course, if you do put in that effort, it will almost certainly improve your game. How many times have you forgotten whether some spot card was good? This comes from lazy thinking about the small cards. Over the weekend, I got a good board when I was in a NT contract with the following spade suit: 9 opposite AQJ82. I took a losing finesse of the queen, and when I got back to dummy I played the spades from the top. When the 10 dropped on the third round, I had to stop to remember what singleton I'd led. I finally decided that I did remember that it was the 9, making the 8 high, so I took the rest of the suit -- if I'd been wrong, I was going down instead of making overtricks.

 

But most players are just not that into it. If they're not thinking about specific cards, they're not going to name specific cards.

[Siegmund]

As an aside, why does anybody ever not specify the card by name when dummy is following suit? Every card name is one syllable long (OK, except the 7), so saying "low" or "top" saves no time, and saying "either" or "any" or "it doesn't matter" costs time!

 

When I was a bridge baby, I was told to make a point of avoiding naming cards by name unless I had to, so that the adjacent tables would not hear the contents of the dummy read out loud to them, creating UI. It made sense to me, at least in the context of a small club game where there was not a general hubbub of sound.

 

I don't know if that's the same reason others do it, or if people are just imitating 'everybody else'.

[aguahombre]

Then, when I reached puberty I learned how to control my voice so I could comply with the requirements of declarer. In the November of life, I have become lazy and often say "High", "low", anything but "play".

[bluejak]

IMO this is completely absurd. Any means any! What on earth else could it possibly mean? It is 10000% obvious that "any" falls under law 46 B5. Any other ruling is a total joke and frankly, a disgrace to the game (again, IMO).

You have a Law that has an over-riding condition. So "any" means any, subject to the over-riding condition as a matter of Law.