Interpretation of law 46B3a

[knyblad]

In Denmark we have a discussion on how law 46B3a is to be understood.

 

Assume ♥ is trump and dummy has ♥Q3, ♣Q. Declarer play ♦3 from his hand and let dummy ruff with the ♥3. Dummy winds the trick, and declarer asks for the queen. Declarer says ♣Q when he sees dummy reach for ♥Q. TD is called.

 

Should law 46B3a be used, so that dummy has to play ♥Q, or should dummy have asked which queen to play?

[gordontd]

46B3 should be used but let's not forget that "(except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible)" precedes the bit that tells us that he has to continue the same suit. So there could in theory be circumstances in which he isn't required to play the heart queen.

[sanst]

In Denmark we have a discussion on how law 46B3a is to be understood.

 

Assume ♥ is trump and dummy has ♥Q3, ♣Q. Declarer play ♦3 from his hand and let dummy ruff with the ♥3. Dummy winds the trick, and declarer asks for the queen. Declarer says ♣Q when he sees dummy reach for ♥Q. TD is called.

 

Should law 46B3a be used, so that dummy has to play ♥Q, or should dummy have asked which queen to play?

The dummy definitely shouldn't ask which queen, unless the queen of hearts is not in his hand, but say the black queens are. Law 46B3a is crystal clear "In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit". The queen of hearts is in the dummy, the previous trick was won by the dummy with the three of hearts, so the queen of hearts is played. Since hearts are trumps, I don't think that the remark between parentheses in the introduction of 46B, "except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible", provides a loophole here.

So what is the discussion about? What are the arguments for allowing the dummy to ask which queen?

BTW, to call for a card that's not in the dummy, is an irregularity, so the dummy isn't allowed to draw attention to it. But what should he do? Not doing anything could be considered implicitly drawing attention, or is this too much of SB's way of thinking?

[gordontd]

BTW, to call for a card that's not in the dummy, is an irregularity, so the dummy isn't allowed to draw attention to it.

He didn't call for a card that's not in dummy.

[sanst]

He didn't call for a card that's not in dummy.

That is why I wrote 'BTW'. It's just a question.

[knyblad]

So what is the discussion about? What are the arguments for allowing the dummy to ask which queen?

The Danish translation is worded in such a way that it has made some TDs think that the suit mentioned in 46B3a is the suit of the call lead. So in their interpretation 46B3a can only be used if dummy has won the trick by playing the highest card of the suit lead (and nobody ruffs.)

 

I interpret the English and Danish text as you do, but wanted to be certain that born English speakers agreed.

[Vampyr]

It is an interesting idea that declarer is only deemed to continue a suit if it was the suit led to the trick, since ruffing and drawing trumps are two different types of play. Ah well.

 

Would declarer's intention be incontrovertible if the ♣Q was a loser and declarer had left in her hand a trump and a loser? I say yes, but then why call for a card so sloppily?

[sanst]

I interpret the English and Danish text as you do, but wanted to be certain that born English speakers agreed.

In which case my opinion doesn't count. My mother language is Dutch, but I've over fifty years of experience in reading and speaking English.

[knyblad]

why call for a card so sloppily?

One of my first TD calls was from a player that had done as I described. I have later experienced that that player is fairly knowledgeable when it comes to bridge laws.

[lamford]

In which case my opinion doesn't count. My mother language is Dutch, but I've over fifty years of experience in reading and speaking English.

I should similarly recuse myself from commenting on this thread. My mother language is Welsh, but as I also have fifty years of experience in reading and speaking English, I will have a go:

 

"In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit."

 

The expression "the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick" is poor, and ambiguous. If dummy ruffed, then which was the suit "in which" dummy won the preceding trick? Trumps or the suit led? If the Laws intended dummy to have to play a trump when (having ruffed) making an incomplete designation, then they would (or should) say "In leading from dummy, declarer is deemed to continue the suit which dummy played to the previous trick." That would be unambiguous. "Continued" also implies that the same suit is led on the second trick, and must apply to situations where dummy leads from, say, AKQxx and leads the ace of the suit which holds, and then says "king".

[pran]

I should similarly recuse myself from commenting on this thread. My mother language is Welsh, but as I also have fifty years of experience in reading and speaking English, I will have a go:

 

"In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit."

 

The expression "the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick" is poor, and ambiguous. If dummy ruffed, then which was the suit "in which" dummy won the preceding trick? Trumps or the suit led? If the Laws intended dummy to have to play a trump when (having ruffed) making an incomplete designation, then they would (or should) say "In leading from dummy, declarer is deemed to continue the suit which dummy played to the previous trick." That would be unambiguous. "Continued" also implies that the same suit is led on the second trick, and must apply to situations where dummy leads from, say, AKQxx and leads the ace of the suit which holds, and then says "king".

I agree that the expression is poor, but I don't see any ambiguity here?

If Dummy won the preceding trick by ruffing he is void in the denomination last led, so the only suit in which he can have "another card" must be trumps.

To me "continue" here means "continue with a card of the same denomination as the last card played from dummy".

[lamford]

I agree that the expression is poor, but I don't see any ambiguity here?

If Dummy won the preceding trick by ruffing he is void in the denomination last led, so the only suit in which he can have "another card" must be trumps.

To me "continue" here means "continue with a card of the same denomination as the last card played from dummy".

The law says "in which" dummy won the last trick. If it meant the suit dummy ruffed with, it should have said "with which". "In which" implies it was the suit led. And if dummy has no card of the suit "in which" he won the last trick, then the designation is incomplete, just as if dummy had ruffed and had no more trumps. Nobody would write that dummy won a trick "in hearts", ruffing a spade.

[barmar]

I've always interpreted that law as meaning that declarer doesn't have to keep repeating the suit -- if he called for a club on the previous trick, and dummy won the trick, he doesn't have to say "club" again.

 

This usually comes up when declarer is running a suit, but it seems like it should also apply when he ruffs in and then continues trumps.

[lamford]

This usually comes up when declarer is running a suit, but it seems like it should also apply when he ruffs in and then continues trumps.

Why does it "seem like it should also apply"? He did not lead trumps on the previous trick, so he is not "continuing trumps". The law seems just ambiguous to me. Is there any minute about this, and has it every been discussed in the EBU, ACBL, or other than Denmark?

[blackshoe]

If the Secretary Bird is now down to arguing the difference between "in" and "which" in the phrase in question, we have gone far beyond practicality, and perhaps beyond even pedanticism. Side note: it is interesting, to me at least, that "pedant" at one time meant "teacher".

 

As far as I know the question has not been discussed in the ACBL or the EBU, though others here may be more qualified to answer that question, especially in the EBU. Here's my take:

 

When a card of a particular suit is led, and dummy wins the trick and calls for a card by rank but not suit, he is deemed, unless his different intention is incontrovertible ("not able to be denied or disputed", "indisputable, incontestable, undeniable, irrefutable, unassailable, beyond dispute, unquestionable, beyond question, indubitable, beyond doubt, unarguable, undebatable") either to have called for the suit led to the previous trick, if a) he won that trick with a card of that suit and b) he has another still in dummy, or to have called for a trump, if he won the previous trick with a trump. It would never have occurred to me to consider the wording of the phrase in question here as ambiguous or poor.

[gordontd]

Nobody would write that dummy won a trick "in hearts", ruffing a spade.

They wouldn't say that dummy won a trick "in spades", ruffing it with a heart.

[pran]

Why does it "seem like it should also apply"? He did not lead trumps on the previous trick, so he is not "continuing trumps". The law seems just ambiguous to me. Is there any minute about this, and has it every been discussed in the EBU, ACBL, or other than Denmark?

Well,

On second thoughts I looked up my WBFLC version of the laws and found

(a) In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit.

 

(b) In all other cases declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so; but if there are two or more such cards that can be legally played declarer must designate which is intended.

Either we accept that after dummy has won a trick with a ruff the lead of another trump is a continuation as dictated in Law 46B3a, or we must go directly to Law 46B3b and let Declarer designate which card is intended.

 

added:

Personally I feel that the consequence must be:

Law 46B3a never applies when Dummy won the preceding trick with a ruff. Instead the Director must go directly to Law 46B3b when declarer in such cases calls for a rank without specifying a suit.

[WellSpyder]

I am amazed at some of the molehills people want to turn into mountains. I think it is completely obvious that this should be interpreted as saying that the suit assumed to be implicitly named by declarer is the same as the one that he either explicitly or implicitly named for the card that won the previous trick.

[mycroft]

and that's why I really appreciate the SB threads (even if this particular character maligns me and all other true SBs with his attitude). In a world without lawyers, 99+% of the time, there's no problem. The other 1% becomes absolute hell because everything's "completely obvious" except differently completely obvious between the players.

 

People claim that the bridge Laws are too lawyerly and too complicated to understand by the players. I disagree with that - I wish they were more lawyerly and came with casebooks and annual interpretation lists, like many other games/sports I work with; I also believe that players who have a wall of bridge books and 40 pages of system notes, including differences between 4♦ and 4♥ on the fifth round of a 1NT auction, who "can't understand" the Laws because they're "too complicated" or "written by lawyers" ... well, they have their priorities, and I can't blame them for that. But I have no sympathy for them when their unwillingness to make understanding the Laws a priority costs them, either.

 

I don't mind people playing "the spirit of the Laws" and "friendly bridge" and... when it works. And it does work, almost all of the time. I don't even mind when it doesn't work, as long as the players take the correct ruling with good grace, knowing they were playing loose. But when it doesn't work, there's a simple, consistent fallback; we rule to the Laws; which gives us something to point to that is unambiguous. Which is where the SB threads come in; if it's not unambiguous, even if the ambiguity has to torture both English and Bridge (or Danish and Bridge) into submission, we need to *know about it*. Case Law may have ruled on it, or may apply; it could be a misread that we can just state is "wrong, get over it"; but it could be valid and we should craft the wording more carefully next time; it could be valid and there's a hole you can drive a truck through (only if you're a truck rodeo expert, sometimes, but it's there) that we need a ruling on it now. (whether we'll get one is an open question, of course).

 

I am concerned that the people involved with the Lawbook are not listening to SB (or lamford, for that matter), and that we nitpickers won't get access to the new Laws until it's too late to change them. But I'm paranoid, I'm sure everything's for the best.

[lamford]

They wouldn't say that dummy won a trick "in spades", ruffing it with a heart.

Right. Therefore there was no suit "in which" dummy won the last trick. Presumably for there to be a suit "in which" dummy won the last trick, it is necessary for dummy to have won the trick by playing a card "in" the suit led. I agree with pran here, that dummy has not designated a suit, and, having two cards of the same rank, can choose. Is this not the official EBU interpretation, gordon?

[blackshoe]

I am concerned that the people involved with the Lawbook are not listening to SB (or lamford, for that matter), and that we nitpickers won't get access to the new Laws until it's too late to change them. But I'm paranoid, I'm sure everything's for the best.

Well, apparently some folks already have access to the "penultimate" version of the new law book, but I agree that most of us will see nothing until the final version is published. Also, a little paranoia is not necessarily a bad thing.

[tony stack]

Interesting topic; yes, "In which" would make it seem that the suit that was led the trick before should be continued is given the higher priority than the other 3 suits was my interpretation as well... "with which" would be more interpreted to mean that second way people were talking about

[Vampyr]

Well, apparently some folks already have access to the "penultimate" version of the new law book, but I agree that most of us will see nothing until the final version is published. Also, a little paranoia is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

I expect that it will be as poorly written as the last version.

 

Grattanese, the modern form of Kaplanese, is really inappropriate for a book that needs to be used by people of all abilities, and translated into many languages. Short clear sentences that can be taken in order would work much better.

 

"If there are logical alternatives to the call made, the player may not choose a call which was suggested by the UI." OK, not super short, but clear and easy to translate. And if "demonstrably suggested" is used, the term should be defined in a footnote or glossary. I have been on the Club and County Director courses, and no one has ever explained to me what it means. I would wager that the vast majority of club directors are similarly in the dark.

 

I really like Andy Bowles' suggestion that there should be an alternate version of the Laws that clubs may choose to use. For example, unless there is a radical change in L27, a volunteer playing director who may not be an expert player or expert director, and has no opportunity to consult with anyone simply cannot apply 27B. At all.

 

Have just seen some flow charts that are appendices, presumably to the white book. I think that the Laws would be better even if written exactly like that. Also that the EBU should supply these flow charts to clubs and directors, e.g. by including them in purchases of the lawbook.

[pran]

Interesting topic; yes, "In which" would make it seem that the suit that was led the trick before should be continued is given the higher priority than the other 3 suits was my interpretation as well... "with which" would be more interpreted to mean that second way people were talking about

If we use the interpretation In which - then Dummy obviously has no card in the assumed suit (unless he revoked when ruffing the previous trick), Law 46B3b applies.

 

If we use the interpretation with which - then Dummy is assumed to lead a trump if he has any, Law 46B3a applies.

 

SB has no case

[gordontd]

I expect that it will be as poorly written as the last version.

Good to see you approaching the matter with an open mind.