helene_t Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 The reason why "a club" is deemed to mean "a small club" is not that the law says so. It is just that it has become custom to use the phrase that way. Things like this could easily differ between Yorkshire and Lancashire, or between remote small-village clubs and the Premier League. More so between players that speak different languages. I think it is silly to try to legislate about it. National bridge federations can describe the proper way of designating this and that in their regulations, but when someone uses an improper designation it will always be up to the director to judge if it is clear what was intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 am tempted to rule that Law 46B1b refers to the lowest ranking card in dummy that ranks above the highest ranking card so far played to the trick regardless of the possibility or even firm knowledge that next hand holds a card that in case may win the trick.That's not what the law says, and it's why I gave the specific example I did. In that particular case, there is no card which is "known to win the trick". Frankly, I would rather invoke Law 46B4 here ("If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card") than adopt your interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 That's not what the law says, and it's why I gave the specific example I did. In that particular case, there is no card which is "known to win the trick". Frankly, I would rather invoke Law 46B4 here ("If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card") than adopt your interpretation.I believe we agree that Law 46 is unnecessarily unclear in its dealing with the word "win", but invoking Law 46B4 here is IMHO stretching this Law far too far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Does that mean "the language of the game is English"?Yes.I suppose the confusion comes from a different interpretation of the phrase "the game". Of course, if English is the official language of the tournament, then English is the language of that game. I find it hard to believe that you would claim that English is the language of the game of bridge in general. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 I believe we agree that Law 46 is unnecessarily unclear in its dealing with the word "win", but invoking Law 46B4 here is IMHO stretching this Law far too far.Perhaps so, but IMHO it's not so far a stretch as is invoking 46B1b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 29, 2013 Report Share Posted November 29, 2013 I believe we agree that Law 46 is unnecessarily unclear in its dealing with the word "win", but invoking Law 46B4 here is IMHO stretching this Law far too far. Perhaps so, but IMHO it's not so far a stretch as is invoking 46B1b.Well, this part of the discussion was about requesting dummy to win the trick, wasn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 29, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2013 Well, this part of the discussion was about requesting dummy to win the trick, wasn't it?Yes it was. So? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 29, 2013 Report Share Posted November 29, 2013 I believe we agree that Law 46 is unnecessarily unclear in its dealing with the word "win", but invoking Law 46B4 here is IMHO stretching this Law far too far. Perhaps so, but IMHO it's not so far a stretch as is invoking 46B1b. Well, this part of the discussion was about requesting dummy to win the trick, wasn't it? Yes it was. So? Well then: Why do you seem to prefer L46B4 over L46B1b which is the relevant law when declarer asks dummy to win the trick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 :blink: There is no card in dummy which is known to win the trick. Therefore the instruction "win it" is equivalent to calling for a card which is not in dummy, which is Law 46B4. You said you were tempted to rule that 46B1b says declarer has called for the lowest card in dummy which is higher than the highest card already played to the trick - but that's not what that law says. Perhaps I should have objected to "invoking 46B1b in that way". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Well then: Why do you seem to prefer L46B4 over L46B1b which is the relevant law when declarer asks dummy to win the trick?We certainly have to apply 46B1b. Ok, now what? Once you apply 46B1b, declarer is deemed to have called for the lowest card which is known to win the trick. No such card exists. So it makes sense to say that 46B4 now applies. We are not applying it instead of 46B1b, though, but as well as (and subsequently to) 46B1b. After all, what would you rule if declarer said "play the lowest card which is known to win the trick"? I would rule that 46B4 applies. And 46B1b tells us we should treat this designation the same as "win it". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 We certainly have to apply 46B1b. Ok, now what? Once you apply 46B1b, declarer is deemed to have called for the lowest card which is known to win the trick. No such card exists. So it makes sense to say that 46B4 now applies. We are not applying it instead of 46B1b, though, but as well as (and subsequently to) 46B1b. After all, what would you rule if declarer said "play the lowest card which is known to win the trick"? I would rule that 46B4 applies. And 46B1b tells us we should treat this designation the same as "win it".This is exactly why I suggested that "win" should probably only be allowed when dummy is fourth to play to the trick, then the lowest card that is known to win the trick is clear (assuming dummy has such a card). In some other position, dummy would have to be keeping track of previous cards playedxv, or always play his highest legal card (although it might not be known to win the trick, it's the best attempt he can make). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Wish I could upvote the previous post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 We certainly have to apply 46B1b. Ok, now what? Once you apply 46B1b, declarer is deemed to have called for the lowest card which is known to win the trick. No such card exists. So it makes sense to say that 46B4 now applies. We are not applying it instead of 46B1b, though, but as well as (and subsequently to) 46B1b. After all, what would you rule if declarer said "play the lowest card which is known to win the trick"? I would rule that 46B4 applies. And 46B1b tells us we should treat this designation the same as "win it".It is clear that Law 46B1b is unfortunate as it now stands because of the words "is known to win the trick". Dummy may not participate in the play and is not supposed to know anything about the cards held by the other three players. An observant dummy may of course gain some knowledge from the auction and play as it progresses, but this knowledge must not in any way be conveyed by dummy to declarer during the play. So when dummy is asked to win the trick he must play according to the cards already played to that trick and not use any knowledge he might have about cards possibly held by the other players. Law 46B4 is only relevant when dummy has no card that can possibly win the trick in progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 The wording of the law may be unfortunate, but that matters not. As dburn says "we hang for what they wrote". I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 The wording of the law may be unfortunate, but that matters not. As dburn says "we hang for what they wrote". I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Again.This is the "Changin Laws" forum, aren't we discussing what they should say rather than what they currently say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted December 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Well, I started this thread for that discussion, but Sven seems to want to discuss how we should read the law as it is. :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Well, I started this thread for that discussion, but Sven seems to want to discuss how we should read the law as it is. :unsure: We have a saying in engineering: Don't fix it if it aint broke! Has anybody produced any evidence of L46A being "broke"? I have never experienced any such indication. We agree that the words "known to win the trick" appears unfortunate, but if we concentrate on what is legal "knowledge" for dummy I think we have the right understanding. Dummy is not allowed to act as a reminder for declarer on what cards RHO might posess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Has anybody produced any evidence of L46A being "broke"? I have never experienced any such indication. A thread was recently started about a situation where a player could be penalised for calling for a "small" card, since this designation is considered an irregularity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted December 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 A thread was recently started about a situation where a player could be penalised for calling for a "small" card, since this designation is considered an irregularity.Yes. We have at least one - hypothetical, to be sure - Secretary Bird who has sought to take advantage of this situation. So the purpose of this thread was to explore whether we need to change something to prevent the SBs from doing that. Sven apparently thinks not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 Yes. We have at least one - hypothetical, to be sure - Secretary Bird who has sought to take advantage of this situation. So the purpose of this thread was to explore whether we need to change something to prevent the SBs from doing that. Sven apparently thinks not.But if we can only find problems by constructing hypotheticals, is it really a problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 But if we can only find problems by constructing hypotheticals, is it really a problem? Obviously. Why shouldn't a similar incident occur in real life? And who knows, maybe it has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 Obviously. Why shouldn't a similar incident occur in real life? And who knows, maybe it has.I am sure a similar incident has occured, and they moved on to the next board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 But if we can only find problems by constructing hypotheticals, is it really a problem? Obviously. Why shouldn't a similar incident occur in real life? And who knows, maybe it has. I am sure a similar incident has occured, and they moved on to the next board. If so then - was that incident a problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 If so then - was that incident a problem? I should imagine it was. Obviously there is a difference of opinion on what the ruling should be, so there is a fair chance that one side or the other was unhappy about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 I should imagine it was. Obviously there is a difference of opinion on what the ruling should be, so there is a fair chance that one side or the other was unhappy about it. Come on. Nobody bothered to call the director (or notify anybody) and you still claim there must have been a problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.