Another Incomplete Designation

[lamford]

According to my reading of the OP, East played the ♣A out of tempo. There's your infraction by him.

 

Also, if East wants a ruling on the question of South's irregular call from dummy, he should call the director before he takes some other action, such as playing a card.

No, East followed with his lowest spade on the opening lead, and the nine of diamonds on the first round, very quickly as well, so there was no change of tempo. Do you think he should be denied redress because he followed with the ace of clubs before noticing the ten of diamonds? Normally, a director call 1-2 seconds late is not denied redress.

 

For me this is a clear PP for South, as well as score stands (6NT-4). Why did South not call for a low diamond, rather than say "ten"? I gave this as a play problem to a few people, and none stated "ten" when answering - those that continued diamonds said "low diamond", so this was a purposeful deviation from correct procedure. There was therefore a breach of 74A3, 72B1 and 73D1. Only a few seconds earlier, South had specified "king of diamonds" when "king" would have been sufficient.

 

And I made a mistake in my presentation of the hand. SB was actually South. Does that change your ruling ...?

[barmar]

I tend to agree. However, this will lead to SBs making the minimum legal designation hoping to induce an error from an opponent.

Since many (if not most, I suspect) players already make the minimum legal designation, how would this be different from current practice? How often does it actually succeed outside of your hypotheticals?

 

If there's a Law that players routinely ignore, making it harsher is not likely to improve things. You can't fight human nature.

[blackshoe]

No, East followed with his lowest spade on the opening lead, and the nine of diamonds on the first round, very quickly as well, so there was no change of tempo. Do you think he should be denied redress because he followed with the ace of clubs before noticing the ten of diamonds? Normally, a director call 1-2 seconds late is not denied redress.

 

For me this is a clear PP for South, as well as score stands (6NT-4). Why did South not call for a low diamond, rather than say "ten"? I gave this as a play problem to a few people, and none stated "ten" when answering - those that continued diamonds said "low diamond", so this was a purposeful deviation from correct procedure. There was therefore a breach of 74A3, 72B1 and 73D1. Only a few seconds earlier, South had specified "king of diamonds" when "king" would have been sufficient.

 

And I made a mistake in my presentation of the hand. SB was actually South. Does that change your ruling ...?

Now you're adding information that wasn't in the original post. I suppose this is another of your hypothetical scenarios, so you feel justified in making it up as you go along, but I gave a ruling on the evidence presented, and on that basis I'll stick by that ruling. What you're proposing now is a different scenario, which may well call for a different ruling.

 

I don't buy the argument in your second paragraph ("purposeful deviation from correct procedure"), and I don't understand it in conjunction with your third paragraph, which I also don't understand. Perhaps you should start over and give us all the (correct) facts.

[lamford]

Since many (if not most, I suspect) players already make the minimum legal designation, how would this be different from current practice? How often does it actually succeed outside of your hypotheticals?

 

If there's a Law that players routinely ignore, making it harsher is not likely to improve things. You can't fight human nature.

I am certainly not advocating making the Law harsher, and "tended to agree" that any legal designation should be permitted. Variation in terminology should be punished where an advantage is gained. Perhaps omitting the suit should always be an infraction, as it gives the defender unnecessary thinking to do, and annoys some people.

[lamford]

Now you're adding information that wasn't in the original post. I suppose this is another of your hypothetical scenarios, so you feel justified in making it up as you go along, but I gave a ruling on the evidence presented, and on that basis I'll stick by that ruling. What you're proposing now is a different scenario, which may well call for a different ruling.

 

I don't buy the argument in your second paragraph ("purposeful deviation from correct procedure"), and I don't understand it in conjunction with your third paragraph, which I also don't understand. Perhaps you should start over and give us all the (correct) facts.

No, I am not adding any new facts nor changing any, other than the identity of South and East, which should make no difference as I am sure you would always rule without allowing the identity of any party to influence you. What information do you think I am adding? In what way am I proposing a different scenario? Because SB is South?

 

The facts are exactly as stated, except it is irrelevant which seat SB occupied, and I cannot remember which it was now. I changed his seat as I felt people were bending over backwards to try to rule against a bridge "lawyer". "Ten" was purposeful deviation from correct procedure whoever used it. Are you suggesting it was accidental?

[Vampyr]

I am certainly not advocating making the Law harsher, and "tended to agree" that any legal designation should be permitted. Variation in terminology should be punished where an advantage was gained. Perhaps omitting the suit should always be an infraction, as it gives the defender unnecessary thinking to do, and annoys some people.

 

You mean that dummy has to do some unnecessary thinking as she has to search around for the card. The defender needs only to follow suit.

[lamford]

You mean that dummy has to do some unnecessary thinking as she has to search around for the card. The defender needs only to follow suit.

No, the defender also needs to establish that when the rank alone is given, the card selected by dummy is from the last suit played when dummy has more than one card of that rank. Some players at the Woodentops Bridge Club would not know which suit had been previously played even if the last trick had not yet been quitted, and the majority of directors there, let alone defenders, would not know the Law.

[lamford]

I agree that the card is played once it is named. But that is not the issue. The issue is the identification of what card has been played. East decided to make his own computation of what card had been played, which was completely unnecessary. If East had waited for dummy to pick a card up, he can rely on that being the card that is played, for if dummy picks up the wrong one East is protected by 45D. We certainly wouldn't have given East any relief if he said that he mis-saw what card dummy picked up (in full sight) or failed to look at it.

Well, under 45D: "If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick <snip>."

 

Did declarer name the ten of diamonds? No, he said "ten". He is deemed to play the ten of diamonds under 46B3a, but he is not deemed to have named the ten of diamonds. So, the correct procedure is that the ten of diamonds is withdrawn. East gets to withdraw the ace of clubs without penalty. Then the TD tells declarer to lead the ten of diamonds anyway under 46B3a and East plays any legal card. Exactly as the TD ruled. And it does not matter one iota if East mis-saw what card dummy picked up in full sight or failed to look at it.

[PeterAlan]

Well, under 45D: "If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick <snip>."

 

Did declarer name the ten of diamonds? No, he said "ten". He is deemed to play the ten of diamonds under 46B3a, but he is not deemed to have named the ten of diamonds. So, the correct procedure is that the ten of diamonds is withdrawn.

You are carrying things too far to claim that declarer has not "named" the ♦10 for the purposes of the Laws. Law 46 - which covers complete designations as well as incomplete ones - is couched in terms of "calling" for a card rather than "naming" it, and it is clear that "call" here and "name" in Law 45 essentially refer to the same thing. I really do not think it is reasonable to contend that completion of the "call" of a card under the provisions of Law 46C3(a) does not constitute "naming" it for the purposes of Law 45, not least because otherwise a normal, complete "call" that fully complies with Law 46A could also fail your "name" test.

 

The Laws do not specify the "names" of cards (they specify in Law 1 labels for the suits and the ranks but, if I am going to be as picky as you, do not specify how these are combined to name a specific card). Is the name of the card in question the "10 of Diamonds"? The "Diamond 10"? Both? One but not the other? Something else as well? Is the next higher card the "Jack of Diamonds" but never the "Knave of Diamonds"?

 

Moreover, even if you contend that declarer has not satisfied the requirements of Law 45B, there is still Law 45C4(a) "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play" (my emphasis). To contend that neither of these Laws applies in these circumstances, but that instead Law 45D, which is clearly intended for a wholly different set of circumstances, kicks in is, in my view, to carry language-lawyering to a risible extreme, and one that the drafting precision of the Laws was never intended to accommodate or embrace. (I refer you to the fate of the narrator of Ian McEwan's "Solid Geometry".)

[blackshoe]

No, I am not adding any new facts nor changing any, other than the identity of South and East, which should make no difference as I am sure you would always rule without allowing the identity of any party to influence you. What information do you think I am adding? In what way am I proposing a different scenario? Because SB is South?

 

The facts are exactly as stated, except it is irrelevant which seat SB occupied, and I cannot remember which it was now. I changed his seat as I felt people were bending over backwards to try to rule against a bridge "lawyer". "Ten" was purposeful deviation from correct procedure whoever used it. Are you suggesting it was accidental?

I don't agree that the facts have not been changed. If the SB was South, and you swapped South and East, was East the declarer? If so, the ♦10 wasn't in dummy. Or are you saying that declarer's reaction to East's comment made him the SB?

 

I do not suggest that "ten" was an accidental deviation from correct procedure (although I'm sure there are people who think any of the designations in 46B is correct procedure). It was "purposeful" in the sense that it was intended to clearly identify the card declarer wanted to play, and not in the sense that it was intended to induce an error from East (or whoever it was), which is how I understand you meant it.

[lamford]

You are carrying things too far to claim that declarer has not "named" the ♦10 for the purposes of the Laws. Law 46 - which covers complete designations as well as incomplete ones - is couched in terms of "calling" for a card rather than "naming" it, and it is clear that "call" here and "name" in Law 45 essentially refer to the same thing. I really do not think it is reasonable to contend that completion of the "call" of a card under the provisions of Law 46C3(a) does not constitute "naming" it for the purposes of Law 45, not least because otherwise a normal, complete "call" that fully complies with Law 46A could also fail your "name" test.

 

The Laws do not specify the "names" of cards (they specify in Law 1 labels for the suits and the ranks but, if I am going to be as picky as you, do not specify how these are combined to name a specific card). Is the name of the card in question the "10 of Diamonds"? The "Diamond 10"? Both? One but not the other? Something else as well? Is the next higher card the "Jack of Diamonds" but never the "Knave of Diamonds"?

 

Moreover, even if you contend that declarer has not satisfied the requirements of Law 45B, there is still Law 45C4(a) "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play" (my emphasis). To contend that neither of these Laws applies in these circumstances, but that instead Law 45D, which is clearly intended for a wholly different set of circumstances, kicks in is, in my view, to carry language-lawyering to a risible extreme, and one that the drafting precision of the Laws was never intended to accommodate or embrace. (I refer you to the fate of the narrator of Ian McEwan's "Solid Geometry".)

So, you think that the use of the term "did not name" in 45D should say "did not call for", or include "did not otherwise designate". I would agree, but I do not think the ten of diamonds has been called for, named or otherwise designated. To argue that it has been because it must be played because the previous diamond was played from dummy is distorting the English Language too far.

 

I note that the word "ruff" does not appear anywhere in the Laws, not even in the definitions. There is, however, case law that the term requires dummy to play the lowest trump (obviously only in a trump contract), but neither Vampyr nor I could find any such requirement in the Laws! To use the term is still a breach of Law 46A, and dummy will inevitably play a card that declarer "did not name". It would indeed be chaos if every time declarer said "ruff", a pedantic opponent asked for the card dummy played to be withdrawn.

 

I can live with interpreting Law 45D such that one adds "or designates a card in such a way that it will need to be played". I still would rule in both this case, and in the "Small-Minded" thread, using Law 23. When any deviation from correct procedure could gain, the declarer is ruled against. I am NOT advocating letting East getting away with playing the ace of clubs if declarer had called for a "small" diamond.

[lamford]

It was "purposeful" in the sense that it was intended to clearly identify the card declarer wanted to play, and not in the sense that it was intended to induce an error from East (or whoever it was), which is how I understand you meant it.

We rule against declarer if he could have known that a purposeful deviation from correct procedure might work to his advantage. We do not need to decide whether the call of "ten" was a purposeful deviation. And it is irrelevant which seat was occupied by SB, so there is no need to continue to discuss that. And I do not see any purpose in posting on this thread again, so will not do so.

[pran]

I (for one) don't care if East, South, both or neither is SB here. I found the behavious of the player who played the ♣A in the manner he did, and his "follow up" activities unethical and unacceptable, but as the cards lie I saw no reason for further action other than a warning to this player.

 

On reading the later posts in this thread I get the impression that the real SB here might be lamford?

[blackshoe]

We rule against declarer if he could have known that a purposeful deviation from correct procedure might work to his advantage. We do not need to decide whether the call of "ten" was a purposeful deviation. And it is irrelevant which seat was occupied by SB, so there is no need to continue to discuss that. And I do not see any purpose in posting on this thread again, so will not do so.

I fail to see how anyone would expect that this very common deviation from correct procedure could work to his advantage. You might as well apply Law 23 willy-nilly to every deviation.

 

I remember reading that Edgar Kaplan used to say "decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to support it". It seems to me that's what Lamford is doing here. It also seems to me that the approach is deprecated.

[campboy]

We rule against declarer if he could have known that a purposeful deviation from correct procedure might work to his advantage.

Could well work to his advantage. This scenario is so unlikely to occur in real life -- even in your original post it is not clear whether East was actually misled or just claimed to be -- that I don't think it is close to satisfying this requirement. People call for "ten" when they mean "the ten of the suit with which dummy won the previous trick" frequently. I can't remember whether I have ever heard someone call for a switch of suit by rank only, it certainly would be years ago if I have, and I think almost anyone would stop and check that was actually what had happened. Not, of course, that East has any business playing so quickly anyway; law 44B makes it clear that it is his turn once dummy has played a card, not merely when declarer has played a card from dummy.

[barmar]

I fail to see how anyone would expect that this very common deviation from correct procedure could work to his advantage. You might as well apply Law 23 willy-nilly to every deviation.

Hear, hear! That interpretation would essentially allow SB a double shot every time his opponent makes the slightest deviation. He can always claim that the opponent induced his misplay, and the opponent could have known it was possible to work to his advantage.

 

"could well work to his advantage" has to mean that there's a reasonable likelihood of it working, not just some remote possibility. And in the case at hand, declarers make incomplete designations all the time, and they almost never induce misplays by the defenders. How could anyone extrapolate from this that it could well work to their advantage, when it probably never has before in their experience?

 

The type of deviation that this law is targeted at are things like hesitating with a singleton. If you do it intentionally it's coffeehousing, which is illegal under 73D2; but it's obvious enough that an opponent may be misled by tempo that you also have to avoid unintentional hesitation per 73D1.

[iviehoff]

Under which Law is East obliged to wait for dummy to place the diamond in the played position?

East can play before dummy if he wants to, and all the law says is that he must play the card he exposed, though he will get absolutely no relief if dummy doesn't do what he expects in that case. Although the card dummy must play is fixed at a certain point, the procedures for playing the card have not been completed at that point. The key point is the identification of what is card that has been played. If East wished for clarification of the interpretation of the irregular designation, he could have called the director, so he makes any interpretation of an incomplete designation at his own risk. If East had waited for the completion of the procedures in relation to playing the card, he could then have relied upon what he sees. East isn't obliged to wait, but by waiting he can rely upon what card dummy places in the played position. He cannot rely upon his own interpretation of the incomplete designation, that is at his own risk.

South has played when he said "ten", and East followed to the ten of clubs. Are you saying that he can do so if there is only one ten in dummy, but has to wait if there is more than one ten in dummy? This allows declarer to make minimum designations in the hope of achieving MPCs.

No I'm not saying he has to wait, he can even play before dummy for all I care, but that would be obviously at his own risk. What I am saying is that if he decides to make his own interpretation of the incomplete designation, then he makes that interpretation at his own risk. He could have asked the director to make the interpretation, or waited for dummy to put a card in the played position and relied on that instead.

And for a Law 23 adjustment against SB, you need an infraction by East. There is clearly one by South, and you submit no arguments to refute the claim that South "could have been aware" his infraction would benefit his side.

That was a cheeky point by me, only relevant if I'm wrong about all the above. If I'm wrong about the preceding and East is allowed to rely upon his own interpretatino of the incomplete designation, then what I'm saying is that morally East is in the wrong and I'd like to find an excuse for such a L23 adjustment against him, because it is a coffee-house and so bad it ought to be adjustable. But I realise I am going to have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find an irregularity to allow it.

 

As I said, there isn't really any sanction against East even for playing before dummy. But I would say it was a violation of the proprieties (the one about detaching a card too soon) for east to take action too soon, and I'll use L23 when it can matter. I will argue that although we reach a point where declarer's play is irrevocable before completion of the complete procedure of playing a card, the playing a card is only finished when the procedure for playing a card is finished, and that is the correct point for deciding whether East is detaching cards too soon.

And for completeness, I assume you would rule that the ace of clubs is a MPC, and West has to duck the second diamond, so 6NT=?

Correct.

[c_corgi]

...

And for a Law 23 adjustment against SB, you need an infraction by East. There is clearly one by South, and you submit no arguments to refute the claim that South "could have been aware" his infraction would benefit his side.

 

An irregularity is what is required for a Law 23 adjustment to be considered. Surely failing to follow suit when able constitutes an irregularity, even in situations where the normal revoke and exposed card penalties do not apply.

 

And for completeness, I assume you would rule that the ace of clubs is a MPC, and West has to duck the second diamond, so 6NT=?

 

6NT makes whether the ♣A is a penalty card or not, providing it is UI to West. Once West is obliged to duck the second round of diamonds, declarer can unblock the hearts and come to two spades, 4 hearts, two diamonds and 4 clubs.

[barmar]

Here's another take on this.

 

The law about how an incomplete designation is interpreted refers to the cards that actually exist in dummy, not the cards that any player mistakenly thinks are in dummy. Why should an opponent get an extra benefit because he misreads the cards in dummy? He wouldn't get a pass if he misheard the card that was called, would he ("I thought you called for the 8, not the Ace")?

 

Declarer knows what cards are in dummy, and he knows how incompleted designations are required to be interpreted, so his expectation is that everyone else at the table will understand it. I don't see how he "could well have known" that SB would choose this occasion to misread dummy's cards.

[nige1]

Were the law to insist on correct designations, all such interesting problems would disappear.

The other, more realistic, way to make the problem disappear is to specify that abbreviated designations of certain popular and unambiguous kinds are perfectly regular. Now even the most imaginative SB of an East hasn't a leg to stand on, and no injustice has been done.

I tend to agree. However, this will lead to SBs making the minimum legal designation hoping to induce an error from an opponent. I also find it annoying when declarer calls for a card by rank only from dummy, both when I am dummy and when I am a defender.

Or multiply, because these designations would rarely be made. The law should, instead, not class incomplete designations as irregularities. Except maybe "play", because that really does sound like "play anything" and is stupid.

Iviehoff and Vampyr are right that this and other sophisticated laws could be clarified. In theory, for example, here you could specify lots of short designations (e.g "small") as perfectly legal. The problem is that such "clarifications" make laws longer and more sophisticated.

 

In practice, few club-level directors and fewer players have the time or inclination to endure more nit-picking. To this law, for example, a typical player reaction is "Why don't they just specify that declarer plays a card by placing it in the played position or by naming its suit and rank." "The rules should forbid other designations as infractions." (Unanimous view of a group of players, yesterday).

 

Thus, for Bridge-rules, in general, there is an interesting dichotomy between:

• On the one hand, the hope of players for simpler rules that they could understand, especially if those simpler rules would result in more consistent rulings. and
• On the other hand, the law-maker's and director's apparent desire for increased devolution, subjectivity, and complexity. For example, posters in on-line law-discussions seem to delight in the resulting intriguing rulings. The typical director reaction to any simplifying suggestion is immediate rejection.

The best hope for Bridge is that law-makers realize that simplifying the rules is in the interest of rank-and-file directors as well as players. Otherwise directors are likely to find that there are few players left to direct.

[pran]

Iviehoff and Vampyr are right that this and other sophisticated laws could be clarified. In theory, for example, here you could specify lots of short designations (e.g "small") as perfectly legal. The problem is that such "clarifications" make laws longer and more sophisticated.

 

In practice, few club-level directors and fewer players have the time or inclination to endure more nit-picking. To this law, for example, a typical player reaction is "Why don't they just specify that declarer plays a card by placing it in the played position or by naming its suit and rank." "The rules should forbid other designations as infractions." (Unanimous view of a group of players, yesterday).

 

Thus, for Bridge-rules, in general, there is an interesting dichotomy between:

• On the one hand, the players' hope for simpler rules that he could understand, especially if simpler rules would result in more consistent rulings. and
• On the other hand, the law-maker's and director's apparent desire for increased devolution, subjectivity, and complexity. For example, posters in on-line law-discussions seem to delight in the resulting intriguing rulings. The typical director reaction to any simplifying suggestion is immediate rejection.

The best hope for Bridge is that law-makers realize that simplifying the rules is in the interest of rank-and-file directors as well as players. Otherwise directors are likely to find that there are few players left to direct.

Be aware that today's bridge is a game that has been developed during hundreds of years (from Whist through trumph Whist, auction Whist and auction Bridge only to mention a few variants).

 

The laws of duplicate bridge as we have them today have carried forward many of the traditions from these earlier variants and has just formalized the understandings that were obvious fifty or hundred years ago.

 

Bridge (as its predecessors) has always been a game for Gentlemen (Ladies came later!). Everybody knew how to play the game and they frowned on anybody trying technicalities to bend the rules they all knew so well.

 

Eventually these rules have been formalized into laws (not always absolutely successfully) and in order to apply these laws the director needs a feeling for the tradition behind the rules. He usually gets such feelings through his training and by studying commentaries to the laws.

 

Law 46 is typical in merging old tradition into legal terms. "We" do not want to abandon methods that has always worked to everybody's satisfaction although they strictly speaking do not conform to "correct procedure".

 

So please let us leave Law 46 as it is, and use it the way it is intended, without SBs and others try ingenious technicalities to fool the game.

[Vampyr]

In practice, few club-level directors and fewer players have the time or inclination to endure more nit-picking. To this law, for example, a typical player reaction is "Why don't they just specify that declarer plays a card by placing it in the played position or by naming its suit and rank." "The rules should forbid other designations as infractions." (Unanimous view of a group of players, yesterday).

 

Who were these players? Few players, in my experience, always name the suit and rank of a card they are playing from dummy.

 

And how would insisting on the "correct" designations be enforced? Would a director stand by each table ready to hand out PPs to players who asked for eg a small diamond?

[blackshoe]

Deleted your two posts, Sven. The "duplicate, please delete" in the first one was sufficient. B-)

[pran]

Deleted your two posts, Sven. The "duplicate, please delete" in the first one was sufficient. B-)

Thanks,

In fact I posted the "please delete" before I remembered that I could just edit my duplicate post! (Silly me :P )

[barmar]

Thanks,

In fact I posted the "please delete" before I remembered that I could just edit my duplicate post! (Silly me :P )

I wish the forum software had an option to allow users to delete their own posts within N minutes of posting. It allows setting a time limit on editing (but we haven't enabled this), but the deletion permission is all or nothing.

 

Although maybe I should just allow it, since the editing permission means they have unlimited capability to replace the post with "Deleted".