blackshoe Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 "Win" is illegal. "The laws are designed to define correct procedure" and correct procedure in this case is defined in Law 46A: you call for a card in dummy by naming the suit and rank of the card. All of Law 46B is about rectification for declarer's ubiquitous infractions of Law 46A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 "Win" is illegal. "The laws are designed to define correct procedure" and correct procedure in this case is defined in Law 46A: you call for a card in dummy by naming the suit and rank of the card. All of Law 46B is about rectification for declarer's ubiquitous infractions of Law 46A.This is splitting hairs. There's no penalty for a violation of 46A if 46B says how to interpret it. It might be technically illegal, but it's de facto permitted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 This is splitting hairs.Whatever you say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 The important thing is to find out what "win" actually means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 "Win" is illegal. "The laws are designed to define correct procedure" and correct procedure in this case is defined in Law 46A: you call for a card in dummy by naming the suit and rank of the card. All of Law 46B is about rectification for declarer's ubiquitous infractions of Law 46A. "Win" is no more "illegal" than "small", "top", "spade", "trump" or any other designation whose meaning is dealt with in the Laws. 46A has "should" not "must". It might be a breach of correct procedure, but a survey of even top players find that both the suit and rank is rarely stated. I do not think a "sufficient" designation is ever illegal. Play the "curse of Scotland" would be illegal, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 It seems it would just be so much easier if "win it" means to play the highest card available. Besides, in the OP, the SB might have obtained a full count if he was playing it, but how does he know declarer isn't 4333 rather than 3343 and as such East might have a stiff diamond? As such, I would say -1 in the OP and making in the second example, both cases with a PP.SB had a full count of the had because their agreement was that when moving on over a quantitative 4NT, RR would bid four-card suits. The fact that RR had explained it as Blackwood was UI to SB, and he also regarded that as UI in interpreting "Win". He therefore played the card that was "known" to win the trick, based on the AI he had. And he was correct, and the TD did indeed require the 8 on the first occasion and the ace on the second occasion, the card "known" to win the trick, which must be interpreted, regardless of the opinion of the ACBL, as the card "known" to win the trick based on the information available to declarer at the time. If RR had claimed in the first hand, stating "taking the marked finesse of the 8 of diamonds", how would you rule? In the second example, East is known to be exactly 6-6-1-0, and the correct card to play is also the eight (gaining on either small singleton with East), but "Win" means that dummy has to play the ace in this instance, and RR's GA comes to the rescue again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 "Win" is no more "illegal" than "small", "top", "spade", "trump" or any other designation whose meaning is dealt with in the Laws. 46A has "should" not "must". It might be a breach of correct procedure, but a survey of even top players find that both the suit and rank is rarely stated. I do not think a "sufficient" designation is ever illegal. Play the "curse of Scotland" would be illegal, however.Failure to do what one "should" do is an infraction. Hence, every designation dealt with in Law 46B is illegal. If no bridge player ever followed 46A that would not make using other designations any less illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 Failure to do what one "should" do is an infraction. Hence, every designation dealt with in Law 46B is illegal. If no bridge player ever followed 46A that would not make using other designations any less illegal.Then we would have 10 or 11 director calls per hand at my local club (as failure to call the TD is also an infraction), as players usually say "follow", "small" or "top", and very rarely say "two of diamonds". By my reckoning that would be 10 x 12 x 12 director calls over 12 rounds at 12 tables. A total of 1440 director calls in the evening. We would lose our premises which we are supposed to vacate by 2300 hours. "Get real" as they say ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 Failure to call the TD is only an infraction if attention is drawn to an irregularity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weejonnie Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 Failure to call the TD is only an infraction if attention is drawn to an irregularity.Not quite true - if you are aware that you have given a misexplanation then failure to call the TD is an infraction (a serious matter indeed). (Although you will have until the end of the clarification period rather than immediately when the new laws come out). 20F4 (law 20F5 says you call the director and give a correct explanation if partner has given an incorrect explanation - but it is not clear which comes first) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 okay, you got me, I neglected to dot that i. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 26, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 Failure to call the TD is only an infraction if attention is drawn to an irregularity.At our club, the SB draws attention to all irregularities if it is in his interest, so, at his table at least, there could be a director call every time there is an incomplete (but sufficient) designation if he followed your approach. On this hand, he did not call the TD when RR said "win", but quickly put the 8 of diamonds in place. If he had been a defender, he would have seen the danger arising, and he would have called the TD on each of the first six tricks, when the rabbit called "king" at trick one, "spade" at trick two, "ace" at trick three, "heart" at trick four, "ace" at trick five and "club" at trick six. RR, by now, might well have specified the suit and rank of the diamond he intended, rather than say "win it", so RR's chance of success would have dropped to around 1 in 4 (as he would just have guessed which diamond to play). Molly the Mule always gives the minimum specification, and has been doing so for seventy years. She would have irritated people by just saying "five" if she crossed to the ace of spades and continued the suit, knowing that dummy would be deemed to play the five of spades, the suit "in which" dummy won the last trick. So, every time Molly is declarer, there could be 12 director calls (or 13 if you would regard her failure to specify the rank and suit at trick 13 as also an infraction) per round. In my opinion, the TD should be called only if there is an infraction of a "must" or "may not" regulation. There I agree with you. Do you think that someone not specifying the suit, but specifying the rank of a suit that is led is an infraction? In my opinion, if the Laws cover which card is played when there is an incomplete call then the TD does not need to be called. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 In my opinion, the TD should be called only if there is an infraction of a "must" or "may not" regulation.This is, as you well know, not what the law says. If attention has not been called to an irregularity, you are of course permitted to proceed without calling the director, but otherwise not calling him just adds another infraction to the pile. Do you think that someone not specifying the suit, but specifying the rank of a suit that is led is an infraction? In my opinion, if the Laws cover which card is played when there is an incomplete call then the TD does not need to be called.Yes, I do, as I said upthread. Again, if no one draws attention to the irregularity, I agree there is no need to call the TD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellSpyder Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 It is my understanding that if declarer tells dummy to ruff when dummy has no trumps (including when the hand is being played at no trumps!) then dummy should do nothing at all. In my view, the same should apply if dummy is asked to "win" the trick but is not the last hand to play. In other words, the interpretation of "win" meaning the lowest card that takes the trick applies if and only if dummy is the last hand to play to the trick. Otherwise it has no meaning. [Disclaimer: the last (and possibly only) time I told dummy to "win" the trick was when it held a singleton K in the suit led and an opponent had already played the A. Dummy did his best to comply with my instruction, but failed to do so.....] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 In my view, the same should apply if dummy is asked to "win" the trick but is not the last hand to play.Neither the old laws nor the new laws distinguish between dummy being asked to "win" the trick when not last to play. In other positions, dummy should play the lowest card "known" to win the trick. This must be the lowest card declarer knows will win the trick. How dummy is supposed to read declarer's mind is anyone's guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 Neither the old laws nor the new laws distinguish between dummy being asked to "win" the trick when not last to play. In other positions, dummy should play the lowest card "known" to win the trick. This must be the lowest card declarer knows will win the trick. How dummy is supposed to read declarer's mind is anyone's guess.Frankly (FWIW), if I were Dummy and Declarer asked me to "win the trick" I would have played my highest card in the suit (if I had more than one to choose between) unless I was absolutely sure that a lower card would be sufficient. This would be the lowest card known to me that will win the trick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 Frankly (FWIW), if I were Dummy and Declarer asked me to "win the trick" I would have played my highest card in the suit (if I had more than one to choose between) unless I was absolutely sure that a lower card would be sufficient. This would be the lowest card known to me that will win the trick. Yes, this is the trouble. What is known to Dummy Ishtar not be known to Declarer. Dummy being absolutely sure of anything is entirely irrelevant and basing an action on it is entirely improper. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 Yes, this is the trouble. What is known to Dummy Ishtar not be known to Declarer. Dummy being absolutely sure of anything is entirely irrelevant and basing an action on it is entirely improper.Indeed, if RR had said to dummy, "Play the card that you know will win the trick", what should dummy do? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axman Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 It is my understanding that if declarer tells dummy to ruff when dummy has no trumps (including when the hand is being played at no trumps!) then dummy should do nothing at all. In my view, the same should apply if dummy is asked to "win" the trick but is not the last hand to play. In other words, the interpretation of "win" meaning the lowest card that takes the trick applies if and only if dummy is the last hand to play to the trick. Otherwise it has no meaning. [Disclaimer: the last (and possibly only) time I told dummy to "win" the trick was when it held a singleton K in the suit led and an opponent had already played the A. Dummy did his best to comply with my instruction, but failed to do so.....] It has occurred to me that declarer may well give the instruction 'win' while dummy has cards in the suit led- none of which are higher than those already contributed; and it seems to me that given L46 that instruction compels dummy to contribute a trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 Frankly (FWIW), if I were Dummy and Declarer asked me to "win the trick" I would have played my highest card in the suit (if I had more than one to choose between) unless I was absolutely sure that a lower card would be sufficient. This would be the lowest card known to me that will win the trick.Yes, this is the trouble. What is known to Dummy Ishtar not be known to Declarer. Dummy being absolutely sure of anything is entirely irrelevant and basing an action on it is entirely improper.I don't see any trouble? Please pay attention to the parts that I have highlighted. If Declarer asks me to win the trick I normally have no alternative to playing my highest card in the relevant suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 I don't see any trouble? Please pay attention to the parts that I have highlighted. If Declarer asks me to win the trick I normally have no alternative to playing my highest card in the relevant suit.Then you are breaking the law, especially if dummy is last to play, when you are always obliged to play the lowest card that will now win the trick, and if dummy is second or third to play then you should play the lowest card that is "known" by you to win the trick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 What do you do if you have no idea which card will win the trick? Sit there like a stone? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Then you are breaking the law, especially if dummy is last to play, when you are always obliged to play the lowest card that will now win the trick, and if dummy is second or third to play then you should play the lowest card that is "known" by you to win the trick. What do you do if you have no idea which card will win the trick? Sit there like a stone? Dummy's knowledge is irrelevant. He must play dummy's highest card if there are other players yet to contribute to the trick. It does not matter if such a player has already shown out; dummy cannot participate in the play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Dummy's knowledge is irrelevant. He must play dummy's highest card if there are other players yet to contribute to the trick. It does not matter if such a player has already shown out; dummy cannot participate in the play.Well, when dummy is asked to ruff, dummy recalls the auction and selects his lowest trump. When dummy is asked to play small, he looks to see which suit is led and plays the lowest card of that suit. In this case he is specifically required to play the lowest card that is known to win the trick. So he has to participate in the play, or there is no play. If dummy is fourth to play, it is easy. If dummy is third to play, he plays the lowest card that is known to win the trick if his LHO has already shown out or is known from the play not to have a card of the suit led, otherwise he plays his highest card. If dummy is second to play, he has again to play the highest card unless both his RHO AND his partner have shown out, or are known not to have a card of the suit led. I am sure this is not what is intended by the Laws, and I stand by my proposed correction earlier: 46B1(b) If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit led that will win the trick if dummy is last to play; otherwise dummy has to play the highest card of the suit led. It is up to the lawmakers to decide what to do if dummy does not have a card of the suit led. I would suggest that he is then obliged to play the lowest trump that wins the trick if last to play, his highest trump but only if it higher than the highest trump played so far to a trick, if not last to play, and any card that declarer specifies without restriction if it is not possible for dummy to win the trick. Complicated but necessary! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Dummy's knowledge is irrelevant. He must play dummy's highest card if there are other players yet to contribute to the trick. It does not matter if such a player has already shown out; dummy cannot participate in the play.Is it "known" to dummy that his highest card will win the trick? If not, on what basis do you say he must play it? 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.