lamford Posted February 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 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?In any contract, if dummy is last to play, it is clear which is the lowest card that is known to win a trick. When dummy is not last to play, in no-trumps, if dummy plays the ace of the suit led, it is known to win the trick. If dummy ruffs with the ace of trumps, it is known that this will win the trick. The rest of the time, dummy has to have kept track of which cards have gone, as a much lower card - even an eight - can be known to win the trick. I think that the word known should disappear from this Law! Much of the time dummy cannot know whether his highest card will win the trick; I guess he just has to sit there and do nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Much of the time dummy cannot know whether his highest card will win the trick; I guess he just has to sit there and do nothing.That was my point, yet Vampyr suggests this is incorrect in law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 That was my point, yet Vampyr suggests this is incorrect in law.No, I think you are right when dummy does not know for certain that a particular card will win the trick. The laws need to state what happens in such a case. And, as you point out on bridgewinners, "Cover" is not defined either, but that is interpreted, I think, as playing the lowest card, in the same suit, above the highest card played so far in this trick. "Over-ruff" must be interpreted as playing the lowest trump in dummy larger than the highest previously played trump in this trick. But we do need to be careful not to waste time discussing common insufficient designations such as "Win it", "Cover" and "Over-ruff". Most people who care about the laws are concerned primarily to fix those that have actually caused problems, or that one could foresee causing problems in reality, or that don't need a strange construction of the words to produce a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 That was my point, yet Vampyr suggests this is incorrect in law. Yes, dummy tries his best ny playing the highest card. As for Lamford's suggestion that dummy must ruff, this is nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 As for Lamford's suggestion that dummy must ruff, this is nonsense.So, a two-card ending with the ace and king of trumps in separate hands, and plain cards of different suits. I lead a plain card and say "win it". The plain card has already been covered. Do you think dummy should discard the other plain card, or ruff? The high trump is a card that it is known will win the trick, so dummy should ruff without asking. Even if the plain card was an ace, I think dummy has to ruff it when told to "win it" and even if dummy does not know the last card in each hand. Interestingly, the 2017 laws will make it unclear what dummy has to do when the only way to win the trick is to ruff high. Adding "of the suit led" has created this ambiguity where none existed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 So, a two-card ending with the ace and king of trumps in separate hands, and plain cards of different suits. I lead a plain card and say "win it". The plain card has already been covered. Do you think dummy should discard the other plain card, or ruff? The high trump is a card that it is known will win the trick, so dummy should ruff without asking. Even if the plain card was an ace, I think dummy has to ruff it when told to "win it" and even if dummy does not know the last card in each hand. I don't know. When someone uses a loser designation like "win" they should get the worst result possible. 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 know. When someone uses a loser designation like "win" they should get the worst result possible.But we know that the new laws are designed to protect people who can't follow suit, can't make sufficient calls, and can't name a card in dummy ... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Can't, or won't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran 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.Normally I am not last to play. Even to you that is a special case. And it appears to me that you are saying precisely the same as I have said twice already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran 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? Of course not - that is a silly idea and I trust that you are not serious here. When Declarer requests me to win the trick I must assume that he knows what he is requesting and do my best to accomplish his request. This can only mean that I must play the card from my hand that has the greatest chance of being a winning card, i.e. my highest ranking card than can legally be played to the trick. There are two exceptions to this: 1: If I have a contiguous sequcence of my highest ranking cards2: (Which is contrary to your assumption above) If I have legal knowledge that a lower ranking card is sufficient to win the trick. (If playing my highest card to the trick is not declarer's intention he should use the word "cover" rather than "win" with his request.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 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.And revoke? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 If dummy is second or third to play then you should play the lowest card that is "known" by you to win the trick.I don't see that it is determined by what is known specifically to dummy. I would rule according to what is known to the whole table. 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 that it is determined by what is known specifically to dummy. I would rule according to what is known to the whole table.Yes, I think that is right, but often the players are of vastly different abilities. RR is unlikely to even know what the contract is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Normally I am not last to play. Even to you that is a special case. And it appears to me that you are saying precisely the same as I have said twice already.No, normally you ARE last to play when declarer uses the expression "Win it". He never uses the expression when leading from dummy, and rarely when second or third to play. I agree with your latest proposal that dummy should try to win the trick to the best of his ability, but with the LOWEST card known to win the trick if possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Yes, I think that is right, but often the players are of vastly different abilities. RR is unlikely to even know what the contract is.Then with RR at the table, I think they have to play the highest card of the suit unless dummy is last to play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 No, normally you ARE last to play when declarer uses the expression "Win it". He never uses the expression when leading from dummy, and rarely when second or third to play. I agree with your latest proposal that dummy should try to win the trick to the best of his ability, but with the LOWEST card known to win the trick if possible.I agree that declerer never uses that expression when leading from Dummy and that has never been anything but a red herring in this thread. But according to my own experience I claim that Declarer most often uses the expression when Dummy is second or third to play to the trick. When Dummy is fourth the question is usually whether Declarer wants to be in his own hand or in Dummy for leading to the next trick and then it is not at all about winning the trick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weejonnie Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 At least Dummy will explicitly be able to prevent declarer revoking. (42A3). This is an improvement (although I haven't yet been called on it - and in any case law 44C would surely allow dummy to take steps - but not suggest a play.) The addition of "of the suit led" means that dummy cannot of his own volition trump a lead - after all declarer may think they are in a different denomination. This reduces some of the anomalies. TBH, I think that 'win it' should only apply when dummy is last to play to a trick, otherwise we can decide on option 2 (lowest card)), option 4 (may designate any legal card), or option 5 (defenders choose). Or decide that 'win' means 'high' and add it into that part of the laws. Or force directors to purchase lie detectors to find out what declarers know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Interestingly, the 2017 laws will make it unclear what dummy has to do when the only way to win the trick is to ruff high. Adding "of the suit led" has created this ambiguity where none existed!I thought it was intended to resolve the ambiguity, not create it. If dummy doesn't have a card of the suit led, 46B4 comes into play: "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is invalid and declarer may designate any legal card." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axman Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 And revoke? I presently am in the state of turmoil. Prior to this thread I had no difficulty with designating 'win', including those cases which compel** dummy to revoke. After all, there are remedies for revokes. However, the discourse so far has made it plain that the instruction, 'win' is a command to dummy to participate (in contravention of law) in the play, and, I do have problems with that; the view I am contemplating for an appropriate remedy is that declarer's RHO may (but, not must) specify the card (subject to L59) in addition to warranting a severe penalty (as declarer gains information from RHO's exercise of penalty). ** being declarer's agent, dummy is compelled to execute declarer's commands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 a command to dummy to participate (in contravention of law) in the play,How can the law be in contravention of the law? The prohibition against participating is a general one, but there are numerous exceptions sprinkled throughout the laws, and this is just one of them. The theme is that they generally don't require dummy to excercise a significant amount of judgement, they're mostly about the mechanics of the game (like asking declarer if he has revoked when he fails to follow suit). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 (If playing my highest card to the trick is not declarer's intention he should use the word "cover" rather than "win" with his request.)Actually, what declarer should do is comply with Law 46A and specify both the denomination and the rank of the card he's playing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted March 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Actually, what declarer should do is comply with Law 46A and specify both the denomination and the rank of the card he's playing.Maybe change that to "must" in the Law, and then you can have a field day with the PPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted March 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Then with RR at the table, I think they have to play the highest card of the suit unless dummy is last to play.RR might not even know whether all the trumps have gone (or whether there are any trumps), and it might well not be known to him that dummy's highest card of the suit led would win the trick. The law says: "If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick he is deemed to have called the lowest card that it is known will win the trick." It does not say "If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick he is deemed to have called the lowest card that declarer knows will win the trick," so your interpretation is not according to the Law, and dummy cannot know what declarer knows. Dummy can play the card that he knows will win the trick, but that is not what the law says either. Dummy can call the TD (because there has been an irregularity), but is not obliged to do so. If dummy plays the card that he knows will win the trick, or that he thinks declarer knows will win the trick, then he is complying as best he can. "It is known" is a terrible construction in both this and the new laws. They are looking into changing this, but don't hold your breath. In theory what is known to dummy is known to the whole table, as dummy has no extra information above that held by others, so maybe dummy should play the card he knows will win the trick. Sometimes of course, he cannot know as he does not know if the highest card is going to be ruffed. Then he cannot comply and the TD should be called. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenG Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 What, then, if the card that dummy plays doesn't win the trick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 What, then, if the card that dummy plays doesn't win the trick?I think it's tacitly understood that "win" is short for "try to win", and this is the spirit that drives the wording of the law. 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.