Small-minded

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt754ha42dt7caqt&w=sj3hkq95dq5432c75&n=sa986h76dakj6ckj3&e=sk2hjt83d98c98642&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2n(Jacoby)p3c(minimum)p4n(RKCB)p5s(2+Q)p6sppp]399|300[/hv]

IMPs; Lead K♥; table result +1430

 

Our 'friend' from a North London club, who looks and behaves like SB, was involved in another dispute recently, after a quiet few months. South was known to be a sharp operator, quick to exploit the foibles of weak players. West led the king of hearts against this poor slam, reached because North thought 3C showed a non-minimum, and South thought it showed a minimum. South won the heart lead and led the ten of diamonds, covered (perhaps wrongly) and won with the king. Declarer now cashed the ace of diamonds and called for a "small diamond" from dummy. When, East, not the sharpest pencil in the box, discarded, the hand was over. SB, West, called the TD and argued that the expression "small diamond" was a breach of 46A, and declarer "could have been aware" that the infraction would benefit his side, increasing the chance of East going wrong, as it could have given East the idea that the "small diamond" was not a winner.

 

How do you rule?

[ahydra]

Erm... can't East see the spots for himself? The AKQ10987 have all been played, and the J is visible in dummy.

 

Someone would have to hold a gun to my head to make me rule in favour of EW here.

 

ahydra

[Zelandakh]

No need for the gun, this is covered by 46B1c. The SB seems to have missed a trick though, since South is not given as correcting the mistaken explanation. Now he just needs to work out a reason why this led to damage. :unsure:

[billw55]

I think this one is total nonsense by SB. "Small diamond" is simply a way of discerning between the jack and the six.

[blackshoe]

SB needs to get a life.

[ggwhiz]

More like pea brained

[Vampyr]

No need for the gun, this is covered by 46B1c. The SB seems to have missed a trick though, since South is not given as correcting the mistaken explanation. Now he just needs to work out a reason why this led to damage. :unsure:

 

Has the OP been edited after this post was added? I didn't see any evidence of a correct or mistaken explanation given.

[chrism]

My first reaction echoed the other posts so far in this thread, but then I gave it a little more thought. The designation is indeed improper according to Law 46A, even though 46B tells us how to interpret it.

 

Declarer was clearly aware that the ♦6 was not "small" in the sense of being a loser, was planning to run it, and could certainly have known that so designating it could mislead an opponent - indeed, it looks likely to me that the designation was deliberately chosen with intent to mislead (of course in a fictional case, this is even less provable than in real life). I would consider that declarer has violated the proprieties in Law 73, and the score is subject to adjustment by 73F.

 

I would hesitate to give EW redress, since East's play is pretty careless, but I would certainly consider awarding a split score, with NS getting -100, EW -1430.

 

This is not similar to a tongue-in-cheek designation like "small spade", "duck" or "play low" when the only spade in dummy is the Ace.

[chrism]

Has the OP been edited after this post was added? I didn't see any evidence of a correct or mistaken explanation given.

Doubtless the reference is to "North thought 3C showed a non-minimum, and South thought it showed a minimum", though there is indeed no evidence that any explanation of 3C was sought or offered during the hand, still less of whether any such explanation was correct or mistaken.

[ggwhiz]

I would hesitate to give EW redress, since East's play is pretty careless, but I would certainly consider awarding a split score, with NS getting -100, EW -1430.

 

Careless does not describe Easts play when they have seen every diamond higher than the 6 already.

 

It's more like a SEWoG hoping that declarer didn't notice.

[nigel_k]

My first reaction echoed the other posts so far in this thread, but then I gave it a little more thought. The designation is indeed improper according to Law 46A, even though 46B tells us how to interpret it.

 

Declarer was clearly aware that the ♦6 was not "small" in the sense of being a loser, was planning to run it, and could certainly have known that so designating it could mislead an opponent - indeed, it looks likely to me that the designation was deliberately chosen with intent to mislead (of course in a fictional case, this is even less provable than in real life). I would consider that declarer has violated the proprieties in Law 73, and the score is subject to adjustment by 73F.

 

I would hesitate to give EW redress, since East's play is pretty careless, but I would certainly consider awarding a split score, with NS getting -100, EW -1430.

 

This is not similar to a tongue-in-cheek designation like "small spade", "duck" or "play low" when the only spade in dummy is the Ace.

 

The incorrect designation did not and could not mislead the opponent because everyone can see that dummy's small diamond is the six. There is no reason to think that East would have played differently if declarer had said "six of diamonds".

[pran]

Come on, folks!

 

Law 46A uses the verb "should" in describing how to play a card from dummy, and the introduction says:

'should' do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)

 

Law 46B clearly and unambiguously states the precise consequences when declarer plays a card from dummy in a manner different from what is prescribed in Law 46A, and there is no room here for any rectification or other penalty when declarer uses a word like "low". Specifically the word "small" does not imply that the card should rank below any particular value, only that is is a call for the "smallest" card available.

 

In fact using words like "top", "high", "low" or "small" when following suit from dummy is common and so much simpler than having to spell out the complete designation that I would seriously consider using Law 74A2 against any player acting like West in this case. I would certainly not make any adjustment unless a deliberate attempt to mislead opponents is shown.

[JLOGIC]

Come on, folks!

 

Law 46A uses the verb "should" in describing how to play a card from dummy, and the introduction says:

'should' do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)

 

Law 46B clearly and unambiguously states the precise consequences when declarer plays a card from dummy in a manner different from what is prescribed in Law 46A, and there is no room here for any rectification or other penalty when declarer uses a word like "low". Specifically the word "small" does not imply that the card should rank below any particular value, only that is is a call for the "smallest" card available.

 

In fact using words like "top", "high", "low" or "small" when following suit from dummy is common and so much simpler than having to spell out the complete designation that I would seriously consider using Law 74A2 against any player acting like West in this case. I would certainly not make any adjustment unless a deliberate attempt to mislead opponents is shown.

 

Agree 100 %, Small means the smallest one from dummy. Top/high means the highest one. It's not like if declarer had said "6 of diamonds" that would wake RHO up to the fact that it's high. Or if declarer said "diamond" that would equally not wake RHO up that it was high. Playing the 6 (in any manner such as diamond, small diamond, 6 of diamonds) instead of the jack of diamonds is a smart bridge play and totally legal much like a falsecard, and that is what got east to mess up because they did not know the 6 was high but did know that the jack was high. It is laughable that east thinks that the word small is what did it, or that they can infer that whenever declarer says the word small the card cannot be a winner.

 

It's not like declarer must say "play the winning 6 of diamonds" or something lol.

[chrism]

It would at least be worth trying to determine (if this were a real-world problem) whether declarer routinely designates "small diamond" or whether he normally says something like "6 of diamonds" or "play a diamond", and this is an unusual designation for him. If he has chosen this occasion specially to emphasise the smallness of the card, I would still suspect coffee-housing.

 

Compare the well-known story (whose details are hazy in my mind, but someone can no doubt provide chapter and verse) of the player whose smallest card in a suit was the eight, when he was anxious to signal low. With Hideous Hog-like presence of mind, he dropped the card on the floor, and while fumbling to pick it up, told the table "carry on ... it's a small heart".

[RunemPard]

I never realized it was my responsibility to help the opponents keep track of the cards left in play...what a joke of a TD call.

[lamford]

My first reaction echoed the other posts so far in this thread, but then I gave it a little more thought. The designation is indeed improper according to Law 46A, even though 46B tells us how to interpret it.

 

Declarer was clearly aware that the ♦6 was not "small" in the sense of being a loser, was planning to run it, and could certainly have known that so designating it could mislead an opponent - indeed, it looks likely to me that the designation was deliberately chosen with intent to mislead (of course in a fictional case, this is even less provable than in real life). I would consider that declarer has violated the proprieties in Law 73, and the score is subject to adjustment by 73F.

 

I would hesitate to give EW redress, since East's play is pretty careless, but I would certainly consider awarding a split score, with NS getting -100, EW -1430.

 

This is not similar to a tongue-in-cheek designation like "small spade", "duck" or "play low" when the only spade in dummy is the Ace.

In my view, this is the only sensible post in this thread. Even though 46A does say "should", not following it is still an infraction. South "could have been aware" that the choice of "small diamond" could work to his advantage. It does not matter what his intent was - you still adjust under 73F. For the class of player that East clearly was, this was not remotely SEWoG, but you only adjust to what you judge would have happened if declarer had correctly said "six of diamonds". That might still be a high percentage of making (but you should err in favour of the non-offenders), as East may still go wrong of course, and EW only get redress for actual damage caused by the infraction.

[lamford]

No need for the gun, this is covered by 46B1c.

If a player led the ace of trumps out of turn against a slam when it could (and did) work to his advantage, you would award redress, even though there are five options for the declarer. You would adjust the score if the infractor could have known that the infraction would benefit his side. There would be no need to prove intent, and it is completely irrelevant how many Laws deal with the infraction or specify what happens after the infraction. You clearly would not say, "oh, we'll let that bit of coffee-housing go, as it is covered by Law 54".

[pran]

In my view, this is the only sensible post in this thread. Even though 46A does say "should", not following it is still an infraction. South "could have been aware" that the choice of "small diamond" could work to his advantage. It does not matter what his intent was - you still adjust under 73F. For the class of player that East clearly was, this was not remotely SEWoG, but you only adjust to what you judge would have happened if declarer had correctly said "six of diamonds". That might still be a high percentage of making (but you should err in favour of the non-offenders), as East may still go wrong of course, and EW only get redress for actual damage caused by the infraction.

Would you rule differently if the call had been for the "smallest Diamond" instead of for for the "small Diamond"?

 

WHY - or in case WHY NOT?

[PeterAlan]

Would you rule differently if the call had been for the "smallest Diamond" instead of for for the "small Diamond"?

 

WHY - or in case WHY NOT?

There are only two ♦s (J6) in dummy at that stage, so SB would regard it as ungrammatical to call for the "smallest" rather than the "smaller". No doubt he would find a way to make something of that.

[nige1]

Thanks, Paul. Reminds me of "The Thumb in the Eye" chapter from Bob Hammans' "At the Table" where the pros relish "playing hardball". I feel that directors should proactively discourage that attitude. South's "small ♦" designation is an irregularity and South could have known it would work to his benefit. East may suspect (or even know) that both dummy's diamonds are good but East could be lulled into a false sense of security by South's illegal designation, which might be a deliberate attempt to bluff East by word of mouth. East's failure to ruff is an error but, IMO, not a SEWOG. IMO the director should rule 6♠-1 for both sides.

 

If directors were to encourage players to use legal designations, there would be some short-term protest. In the long term, however there would be fewer acrimonious rulings and interminable threads in the laws forum. Better, the laws should simply prohibit illegal designations rather than provide interpretations of them.

[lamford]

Would you rule differently if the call had been for the "smallest Diamond" instead of for for the "small Diamond"?

 

WHY - or in case WHY NOT?

As usual your posts contribute almost nothing to the thread, and the capital letters add nothing either. Calling for any of "smallest diamond", "smaller diamond" or "small diamond" is an infraction.

[pran]

Thanks, Paul. Reminds me of "The Thumb in the Eye" chapter from Bob Hammans' "At the Table" where the pros relish "playing hardball". I feel that directors should proactively discourage that attitude. South's "small ♦" designation is an irregularity and South could have known it would work to his benefit. East may suspect (or even know) that both dummy's diamonds are good but East could be lulled into a false sense of security by South's illegal designation, which might be a deliberate attempt to bluff East by word of mouth. East's failure to ruff is an error but, IMO, not a SEWOG. IMO the director should rule 6♠-1 for both sides.

 

If directors were to encourage players to use legal designations, there would be some short-term protest. In the long term, however there would be fewer acrimonious rulings and interminable threads in the laws forum. Better, the laws should simply prohibit illegal designations rather than provide interpretations of them.

That would be a matter for the WBFLC to consider.

 

The current Law on declarer's play from dummy dates from 1975, before that the laws simply stated that declarer plays a card from dummy by naming it or touching it.

 

I assume that the tradition of naming a card in some cases by just using words like "small", "low", "high" or "top" etc. (in addition to the denomination when necessary) goes back at least 100 years, never causing any problems, so I don't really see any good reason for another change of the law in this respect (beyond the change made in 1975).

[pran]

As usual your posts contribute almost nothing to the thread, and the capital letters add nothing either. Calling for any of "smallest diamond", "smaller diamond" or "small diamond" is an infraction.

Which confirms my suspicion that the reason for your ruling is not East being misled into believing that the "small" Diamond was not a winning Diamond, but the desire to make rulings on technicalities as such.

[ggwhiz]

Calling for any of "smallest diamond", "smaller diamond" or "small diamond" is an infraction.

 

I believe you with your far superior knowledge of the laws but what an inane law! I and every player I know have designated plays from dummy as small (or just "diamond") or big since the mid 70's and have never heard of a single ruling being made (or requested) on this issue. Reminds me of a successful lawsuit where a guy blew the skill testing question in a contest and sued the company (McDonalds?) for discriminating against stupid people.

 

Mind you our Canadian football championship was held in Montreal one year and Calgary was playing in it. One hotel found out to their chagrin that they MUST by law provide accommodation for their guests horses and that prompted some long overdue legal housekeeping..... and more housekeeping from some poor minimum wage stiffs.

[pran]

I believe you with your far superior knowledge of the laws but what an inane law! I and every player I know have designated plays from dummy as small (or just "diamond") or big since the mid 70's and have never heard of a single ruling being made (or requested) on this issue.

 

This was perfectly legal (with nobody's cause for concern) until 1975!

From then on explicitly spelling out the rank and suit of the card played has been a recommendation ("should"), not a requirement ("shall").