Small-minded

[nige1]

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.

In the past, Bridge law was simpler and better. Unfortunately, current law is chock-a-bloc with bizarre technicalities that need the urgent attention of law-makers. Lamford draws attention to them. Until law-makers get round to addressing such issues, however, it's incumbent on directors to enforce the law, as written.

[pran]

In the past, Bridge law was simpler and better. Unfortunately, current law is chock-a-bloc with bizarre technicalities that need the urgent attention of law-makers. Lamford draws attention to them. Until law-makers get round to addressing such issues, however, it's incumbent on directors to enforce the law, as written.

And when the Law says "should" I see no reason to rule as if it said "shall". The introduction to the laws gives the Directors clear information on how to understand these words.

[blackshoe]

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

You are misinterpreting the law. When a player "should" do something, it is not a recommendation. If it were, it would not be an infraction to fail to do it.

[pran]

You are misinterpreting the law. When a player "should" do something, it is not a recommendation. If it were, it would not be an infraction to fail to do it.

 

I agree, but this is a technicality. Don't forget

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

 

The only sensible interpretation of this is that penalization should only take place when there are aggravating circumstances.

(And I see none in the description of the case we discuss here.)

[campboy]

"Not often penalised" means... not often penalised. It would be rare to give a procedural penalty. It does not mean that it is rare to adjust when there is damage.

 

I think it would be an improvement for the laws to permit "small", etc, as legal designations. Provided it is used consitently it seems unreasonable to expect declarer to change to saying "six" in this specific case. Of course we would still be able to adjust if a declarer who normally specifies the rank were to say "small" in this case: that is a variation in manner which could benefit him, so he should careful to avoid it (73D1).

 

I am glad this is an invented case; provided declarer normally says "small" I do not want to adjust, but I can't see a legal reason not to as the law stands.

[JLOGIC]

So you think if there is an infraction, there is automatically an adjustment? That makes no sense. If there is a BIT that is an infraction, but it only leads to an adjustment if it might have changed the outcome of a hand.

 

In this case, even if calling "small" instead of "six" is an infraction, why would we think it might have influenced the play? It's not like "six" would wake east up to it being a high diamond, but small means they will not realize it's high. If someone knows the six is high, and they see the six played from dummy, just because declarer said "small" they are not obligated to think it's not a winner. As far as I know small does not mean "non winner." There is no chance someone who saw the 6 in dummy and saw it played, and knew it was high, would now fail to know it was high when declarer said small. That is absolutely absurd. Even if small is an infraction, there is no reason to believe east knew the 6 was high but when they heard small, they didn't think it was high, and thus pitched. Give me a break.

[paulhuggin]

I don't see how this is coffee housing any more than stronger opponents making better use of a bidding system than weaker ones. Declarer is not obliged to tell the defence whether the spot cards they are calling from dummy are winners or not (and it would surely open up a worse can of worms if they got that wrong, deliberately or otherwise). And how is declarer supposed to designate the 6 with J6 remaining - should they always name the card's ranking? that can get irritating at other times, which is why it's not part of the laws. It's not declarer's job to make sure defenders have been following the spot cards.

[cherdano]

I think declarer *should* be obliged to call for the ♦J, not the ♦6, to help RHO realize that he has to ruff in.

 

Sarcasm aside, while I wouldn't use the same language as the poster with an ALL CAPS name, my feelings are pretty similar.

[OleBerg]

Incredibly silly ruling.

 

Even if South deliberately called it a small to confuse the opponents, I find it silly to adjust. I know that this may very well be illegal, but if it is, the rules are silly. The lovely game of tournament-bridge is first a competition of wits, and only secondly a social gathering. It is the players own responsibility to keep track of the cards.

 

What's next? Will it be an infraction if you call for a high diamond in a dummy containing ♦KQJ, and will the opponents get redress when they forget to take the ace, because they think that the king is high?

 

It happens 24/7/365 that players designate cards as "High" or "Low", and it is a fundamental principle of the laws, that you do not evaluate the person in question, but that you evaluate the situation as such.

 

This goes for §23 as well. You should not contemplate whether the player in question could have known that an infraction could work to his/her advantage, but whether a player of the general level of the infractor could have known it.

 

As a whole, if you choose to adjust here, you should also give a warning, and subsequent administrative penalties, every time a player designates a card by anything other than its name.(Like "High" or "Low".)

 

Non-sarcasm aside, I would use the same language as the poster with an ALL CAPS name, but I am not as good at it.

 

Best Regards

 

Ole Berg

[OleBerg]

Mostly for JLOGIC:

 

As an active TD I can assure you, that we can circle-jerk to our own brilliance without having to resort to such silly rulings. :)

 

Best Regards

 

Ole Berg

[gnasher]

So you think if there is an infraction, there is automatically an adjustment?

I don't think anyone said that.

 

If there is an infraction, the director should consider two things:

- Does the infraction merit a procedural penalty? If so, he issues one.

- Did the infraction damage the other side? If so, he adjusts the score.

 

It should be automatic for him to think about both of these, but it's never automatic to adjust the score.

 

That makes no sense. If there is a BIT that is an infraction, but it only leads to an adjustment if it might have changed the outcome of a hand.

A BIT isn't usually an infraction. It's merely an irregularity.

 

It's true that sometimes breaking tempo can be an infraction, for example if you pause without any bridge reason and that misleads an opponent. But in general stopping to think is legal. That's a good thing, because bridge would be an awful game if thinking weren't allowed.

Edited November 24, 2013 by gnasher

[campboy]

Sure, you only adjust if you think there was damage, ie if you think the infraction might have changed the outcome. Unfortunately, much as I might like to believe otherwise, if a declarer who normally says "small" was to say "six" in this case, I think there is a reasonable chance it would wake East up. As I say, I do believe that it is completely unfair to expect such a declarer to do this, but the solution to that is to change the law.

 

Obviously it is far better to discuss this sort of problem in a theoretical setting and get the law fixed before it actually comes up, which is exactly why Lamford's threads can be so valuable.

[OleBerg]

For chrism:

 

You wrote: "Declarer was clearly aware that the ♦6 was not "small" in the sense of being a loser,..."

 

Where in the laws is it said, that the term "small" is equal to a loser?

 

 

And yes, I would like to compare with the story, where the Hog says something like: "It is a small heart".

 

The two situations are nothing like each other. The Hog transfers unauthorized information to his partner, information the partner could not get in a legal manner. If South is, as alleged, "coffee-housing" in the described situation, he changes his use of technicalities in the game, to try and get an advantage. As the practice of calling a card "low" if it is the smallest in dummy is generally accepted, it is a part of the game.

 

I would rather much compare it to this one:

 

Declarer has:

 

Dummy:

 

♥AQJ109

 

In hand:

 

♥5432

 

Declarer plays a small heart to the ♥9, East showing out.

Now declarer crosses to the hand, leads a heart attempting to finesse.

West plays the ♥K, but declarer, being ahead of himself, finesses with the ♥10. Just declarers own silly fault.

 

Not that my comparison is completely similar to the original problem, but it is a lot more like it.

 

Best Regards

 

Ole Berg

[pran]

A BIT isn't usually an infraction. It's merely an irregularity.

 

It's true that sometimes breaking tempo can be an infraction, for example if you pause without any bridge reason and that misleads an opponent. But in general stopping to think is legal. That's a good thing, because bridge would be an awful game if thinking weren't allowed.

By your own language BIT is always an infraction:

2.Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste.[...]

The word "should" have exactly the same meaning here as in Law 46A.

[gnasher]

By your own language BIT is always an infraction:

Law 73A2 includes the word "undue". If a pause is justifiied by the need to think, it's not undue.

[c_corgi]

...

 

Obviously it is far better to discuss this sort of problem in a theoretical setting and get the law fixed before it actually comes up, which is exactly why Lamford's threads can be so valuable.

 

True. But fixing the laws to such an extent that a literal interpretation of them will never give silly results is a long way off. I suspect that implementing silly rulings whenever the literal interpretation of the laws demand it would mean that bridge ceases to exist long before the laws are fixed. Using the literal interpretation has the benefit of avoiding subjective decisions regarding what is "silly" and what isn't, but IMO the cost would be too high.

[campboy]

By your own language BIT is always an infraction:

[...]

The word "should" have exactly the same meaning here as in Law 46A.

All that means is that an undue BIT is an infraction. Hesitating because you have something to think about is not.

[lamford]

In this case, even if calling "small" instead of "six" is an infraction, why would we think it might have influenced the play?

Calling for the six of diamonds had a reasonable chance of success, we will call it x%. Against this particular East, that would have been quite high, as East has to realise that it is a winner, when he should work out to ruff with the king, not a small one. Let us guess that it would have worked 75% of the time anyway. I checked out 30 hands recently with declarers of different strengths. When they are running a suit from dummy, and they are only winners, or the only cards of that suit left, they usually say "diamond", for example, and sometimes specify the card, and sometime say "top diamond". In 30 instances I watched, when the cards were equal, "low diamond" was not selected once.

 

It is clear that by selecting the phrase "low diamond" in this instance, taking into account the whole hand, not just the phrase on its own, declarer could have known that the deliberate breach of Law 46A could have been to his benefit. It could easily reinforce the belief in East's mind that declarer intended to ruff this. It increased the chance of making the contract from x% to x+y%. It is this y%, with some adjustment in favour of the non-offenders, that you award to EW for the infraction. The problem occurs in non-weighted-score land, where I presume that you have to give one score or another.

 

You would give up bridge if a TD ruled in favour of EW here. I would give up bridge if coffee-housing of this type became prevalent and was not punished. Out of interest, how would you rule if declarer has said "play the losing diamond" and dummy had led the six?

 

For what it is worth, if declarer had said "diamond", I would not adjust, as I would estimate that y is indeed 0%.

[aguahombre]

SB needs to get a life.

I laughed; hope it was intended. So should Wile E. Coyote.

[campboy]

True. But fixing the laws to such an extent that a literal interpretation of them will never give silly results is a long way off. I suspect that implementing silly rulings whenever the literal interpretation of the laws demand it would mean that bridge ceases to exist long before the laws are fixed. Using the literal interpretation has the benefit of avoiding subjective decisions regarding what is "silly" and what isn't, but IMO the cost would be too high.

Well IMO the law about calling for cards from dummy should have been changed long ago to match actual practice; most people normally call for "small" and no-one really thinks of it as irregular. I suspect that the reason it hasn't changed is that it is regarded as unimportant; Lamford has shown us that it can matter.

 

I think talking about this being a "literal" reading of the laws is unhelpful. There are lots of situations where I am happy to interpret a word or phrase in a way that I think is plausible and makes more sense than a strict dictionary definition (see my definition of "suggested" in another thread). But interpreting "an infraction" as "not an infraction" seems to me to be so far from what is written as to not be an interpretation so much as a re-imagining.

[paulhuggin]

Until designations such as "small", "top" etc which do not designate the card to be played by rank are explicitly forbidden by the laws then declarer can use them freely. And if this is deemed to be coffee housing then how about running a long suit hoping for oppo to discard the wrong thing - is that not also trying to induce an error? And if the answer to my example is "oppo can work it out" then surely the same applies to working out whether a spot card is a winner or not?

[chrism]

You would give up bridge if a TD ruled in favour of EW here. I would give up bridge if coffee-housing of this type became prevalent and was not punished.

Fortunaely for bridge it is possible that the TD could rule in favour of neither side here. I would only adjust against declarer if there were some evidence that he did not routinely call "small" for the lowest card of a suit. I would be hard put to think of circumstances for giving EW redress.

 

Notwithstanding the passion expressed ny some of the posters, it is important that we understand exactly what the Laws say before imposing our personal concept of "fairness". In this case the Laws provide a justification for adjustment, but they also provide an escape clause since IMO "could have known" gives wriggle-room to exonerate those declarers who are clearly just following the habit of a lifetime. Yes, a reflective or dishonest declarer could have known, but could *this* declarer?

[lamford]

Until designations such as "small", "top" etc which do not designate the card to be played by rank are explicitly forbidden by the laws then declarer can use them freely. And if this is deemed to be coffee housing then how about running a long suit hoping for oppo to discard the wrong thing - is that not also trying to induce an error? And if the answer to my example is "oppo can work it out" then surely the same applies to working out whether a spot card is a winner or not?

You miss the point. Redress is only provided in the rare cases where varying from 46A could work to one's advantage. There was a hand on here in which declarer received a lead of the two of spades in a heart contract. Dummy had KJx and declarer stiff queen. Declarer called for "any" from dummy, because he knew the two of spades was not a singleton, but RHO did not, and declarer just needed one pitch not two. The consensus on this forum was that "any", rather than specifying the card, was a breach of 46A and should be punished. I recall a leading European TD thinking it merited a PP. I shall reconstruct the whole hand if this is not clear. It would be good to have three or four threads on the same subject until barmar cries "enough!".

[campboy]

Until designations such as "small", "top" etc which do not designate the card to be played by rank are explicitly forbidden by the laws then declarer can use them freely.

The problem is that they are explicitly forbidden by the laws; IMO they shouldn't be. Law 46A says "When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card," and "should" is defined to mean that failure to do so is an infraction.

[lamford]

Yes, a reflective or dishonest declarer could have known, but could *this* declarer?

That is not the benchmark that is applied. The question is could the so-called "Probst cheat" have known? One of John's constructions was the player dropping both small cards from Kxx in a slam when declarer led the queen of trumps from QJTxx opposite Axxxx. We rule against this "Probst cheat", even though it is extremely unlikely that anyone could think quickly enough to pull off that ruse.