Small-minded

[OleBerg]

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 you 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%.

 

I think what lamford meant to say was: "Because East is likely to think of a "small" as a loser, while he might think of "♦6" as a possible winner, and thus think." (I still wait to hear where in the laws there is justification for the assumption that the infraction would cause East to react thus.)

 

But instead he described what his reasoning would be after he established that there there was an infraction.

 

Best Regards

 

Ole Berg

 

Ps.: If the player said: "Play the losing diamond" against an absolute beginner, I would definitely consider it bad style, but not something for the TD to resolve. This would more be a case for the manager. ("We do not like your kind around here, please leave, and come back when you have learned to behave.")

[nige1]

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.

Bridge law specifies the correct designatiion so "small diamond" is an irregularity -- not normally penalised. The question is: should you be allowed to gain from an irregularity? Here is an abnormal context, where the illegal designation could convey a false impression to East. Whether to condone a possible ploy is a matter of judgement. I confess, as East, I might be gullible enough to taken in but, IMO, even if you, yourself, would never go wrong, it shouldn't overly influence your ruling. What is Gordontd's view?

[pran]

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.

As I have already pointed out: This Law was changed in 1975 (into its current version).

 

The laws before 1975 just stated that declarer plays a card from dummy by naming it or by touching it. They included no further specification on how to "name" a card, and I have strong reasons to believe that using words like "small" etc. had commonly been used whenever unambiguous for as long as a "dummy" player has existed in the game of Bridge. (The oldest book on Bridge - predecessor to Auction Bridge - in my Library, issued in 1906, includes rules applicable on "Dummy".)

[andyv]

I guess next time I play such a hand I'll have to call for the "small diamond that is good". Of course, if my memory has failed me and the diamond isn't good, I'd still be in trouble.

[aguahombre]

I guess next time I play such a hand I'll have to call for the "small diamond that is good". Of course, if my memory has failed me and the diamond isn't good, I'd still be in trouble.

Is this our renowned VG commentator? If so, can we expect more contributions than one every year or so?

[blackshoe]

Coffee-housing should be stamped out. So should bridge-lawyering. In this case one player may or may not have been coffee-housing. His opponent was clearly bridge-lawyering.

[lamford]

Is this our renowned VG commentator? If so, can we expect more contributions than one every year or so?

Judging by the quality of the comment, the current average of twice per millennium is about right.

[aguahombre]

It certainly improved the overcall quality of this thread. Except for Ed's urging of a fictional character to get a life, the rest is weak.

[lamford]

It certainly improved the overcall quality of this thread. Except for Ed's urging of a fictional character to get a life, the rest is weak.

What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy? - George Orwell

[aguahombre]

Except for the part about your giving the rest of the posters' opinions a fair hearing, I totally agree.

[lamford]

Except for the part about your giving the rest of the posters' opinions a fair hearing, I totally agree.

On the contrary; I may not agree with some of the posters, but, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, I will defend to the death their right to make an ass of themselves.

[dburn]

Oh, this thread and the question that began it is not weak at all. The matters that it raises are of considerable importance.

 

Here is some fellow who has departed from a legally required procedure in respect of the calling of a card from dummy. He has done so intentionally in order to gain some advantage. Law 72B is clear: a player must not infringe a law intentionally. Of course, only philosophers know what that means; the rest of you think that it means "with intent to break the law". It does not.

 

Law 73D2 is clearer still: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of [...] any purposeful deviation from correct procedure". In calling expressly for a small diamond, South was purposefully deviating from correct procedure in an attempt to induce an error from East, and a score adjustment was in order when this machination succeeded.

 

At least, that is (or so I surmise) the view and the intent of the OP. He has the Law on his side, and the Law is the true embodiment of everything that's excellent.

 

On the other hand, I have just attended a tournament at which every single player (including myself) broke the Law a good few hundred times over the course of a weekend. What did they do? Why, they asked for a small card from dummy. Were the Directors called when this happened? Actually, no. What would they have done if it had happened? Their protocols doubtless proscribe them from telling the paying customers to go and boil their heads, which would in this case be a pity.

 

"The common law", said Travers Humphreys, "is founded on common sense. The other law is made by politicians." Calling "small", or "small diamond", is technically an infraction of Law, but is a procedure so well established by custom and practice that to all intents and purposes it is legal, or (what is not quite the same thing, but ought to be) "not illegal". It is to be hoped that Laws 46 and 47 will be revised in the next edition of the Laws so that what has been done by everybody on what must be a total of billions of occasions does not constitute a breach of Law.

 

To that extent, this thread has drawn attention to a deficiency in the Laws that ought to be rectified. It raises also questions as to what is and what is not a "legitimate swindle", if there can be such a thing. Such matters are entirely subjective, and if experience has taught me anything it is that people who think one way cannot be reconciled with people who think the other way even though both may be equally right or equally wrong.

 

Incidentally, if Grosvenor were East, he would have ruffed the third diamond with the two.

[aguahombre]

A true Grosvenor Gambit requires two things the small ruff would lack....the gain-back of the trick(s) it would have cost, and intent to tick off Declarer thereby.

[lamford]

A true Grosvenor Gambit requires two things the small ruff would lack....the gain-back of the trick(s) it would have cost, and intent to tick off Declarer thereby.

Indeed it fulfils both of those, in that declarer may now conclude that East does not have K2 (or would ruff high) and play for his only legitimate chance of J2, by over-ruffing and running the queen, which was his genuine line all along. The alert East would also ask to see the previous trick after it was quitted, and take umbrage when the request is declined, before ruffing with the two ...

[dburn]

Quite so. Agua, when they ask us "Can you speak Rhinoceros?" we say "Of causeros. Can't you?"

[Cascade]

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

 

 

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.)

 

I am coming late to this thread and havent read all of the subsequent posts but an adjustment is not a penalisation.

[Vampyr]

You guys are actually directors and might rule in this manner?

 

I think that the point is actually that the Laws are wrong by making the calling of "small" an infraction. Lamford's threads tend to give examples of the literal application of the Laws, to demonstrate deficiencies in the Laws.

[iviehoff]

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%.

What if this player never calls "six of diamonds" or "diamond" when the six is the small one, he always calls "small diamond". South is bang to rights if his call of "small" was not his routine practice, but let us suppose it is his routine practice. If on this occasion instead he chose to say "six of diamonds", or, as you suggest, "diamond", those would equally be an offence against the proprieties: L 74A3 requires a player to be uniform in his procedure. Having got into the habit of always saying "small", an apparently unobjectional habit widely folled, now I don't think the player has available a method of calling for the 6 that isn't irregular.

 

To change your designation from "small diamond" to "diamond" when and only when the cards are of equivalent rank is surely something that cannot be required. A player is not required to know that his own cards are of equivalent rank.

 

Who is "coffee-housing" who here? We could change the law so that "small" was a legal designation, and we would all be happy. Then, assuming South hasn't deliberately used different designatino from usual, South couldn't even be accused of any kind of malpractice. I think to accuse someone of coffee-housing when they are just doing what we'd probably like them to do is ridiculous.

[lamford]

What if this player never calls "six of diamonds" or "diamond" when the six is the small one, he always calls "small diamond".

Under the Laws as they stand he will always be committing an infraction, and he suffers the consequences when and only when damage results. If someone claims he always asks about an alert, you might regard the question as not giving UI, but establishing whether his claim is true is never easy. It would be harder still to establish the player's habits when he wants to play the smallest card from dummy.

 

You could argue that no motorist should be prosecuted for driving between 70 mph and 80 mph in the UK, because everyone does it. The solution is to change the Law. But then you will argue that no motorist should be prosecuted for driving between 80 mph and 90 mph because everyone does it ...

[lamford]

A player is not required to know that his own cards are of equivalent rank.

I agree. The solution is to change the Law, deleting Law 46A altogether. "Any" should also mean that the opponents choose. We then have to deal with things like "discard any loser", "discard any small card" etc.

[chrism]

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.

I am familiar with the "Probst cheat" principle, and often paraphrase it when explaining to virtuous offenders why an adverse ruling is not an accusation of cheating. However, it is an interpretation of the law, albeit an excellent one, that is not explicit in a literal reading. Law 73F does not instruct us how to determine whether declarer could have known of possible damage, which I believe introduces a small crack through which justice can be allowed to enter the process of litigation, though such a dangerous concept obviously needs to be handled with caution :)

[billw55]

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.

Fortunately, no actual TD was burdened with responding to this call.

[iviehoff]

Under the Laws as they stand he will always be committing an infraction, and he suffers the consequences when and only when damage results.

...

You could argue that no motorist should be prosecuted for driving between 70 mph and 80 mph in the UK, because everyone does it. The solution is to change the Law.

The difference is that calling "small" as a way of designating the smallest card in a suit is essentially harmless and should be legalised, rather than the curious situation of being officially defined as an irregularity but then given an official interpretation because everyone does it all the time. A player who religiously calls every card by suit and denomination is thought of as rather annoyingly stuck-up. One could even say it is actually to the benefit of the game that people call the card as small rather than numbering it every time, as it reduces brain processing effort. Once one realises that the action complained of could be harmlessly legalised, then any suggestion that there is damage, of any kind other than what a bridge-lawyer's avariciousness can point to, goes away.

 

Now if someone is complaining that a player is deliberately changing his mode of designation from card to card to disconcert or distract an opponent, then that is a realistic complaint.

[lamford]

A player who religiously calls every card by suit and denomination is thought of as rather annoyingly stuck-up.

Indeed, there is a strong county player who always says, "king of diamonds, please, partner" or "six of diamonds, please, partner" every ******* time. I also think "small" is annoying when the dummy has a singleton ace. "Play" is another form that I see, which is fine. All these are technical infractions, but it is hard to see how they can gain. This case is different. "Small diamond" was chosen in order to catch East napping and it succeeded. There is no need to divine intent. "Could have been aware" is enough.

[blackshoe]

"Small diamond" was chosen in order to catch East napping and it succeeded.

How do you know that? How is the table director supposed to know it?