lamford Posted March 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 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."However, if declarer says "Win it" when dummy does not have a card of the suit led, declarer has not called for a card that is not in dummy, so 46B4 does not come into play. If dummy has a trump, and it is "known" that this will win the trick, then this trump has to be played, to comply with the request to "Win it". It is is only if dummy has a card of the suit led that dummy is deemed to play the lowest card that will be known to win the trick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Maybe change that to "must" in the Law, and then you can have a field day with the PPs.Sure. Except that neither one of those things is going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 2, 2017 Report Share Posted March 2, 2017 However, if declarer says "Win it" when dummy does not have a card of the suit led, declarer has not called for a card that is not in dummy, so 46B4 does not come into play. If dummy has a trump, and it is "known" that this will win the trick, then this trump has to be played, to comply with the request to "Win it". It is is only if dummy has a card of the suit led that dummy is deemed to play the lowest card that will be known to win the trick.But the new law specifically says "of the suit led", so it can't be a request to play a trump. It's a request to play the lowest card of the suit led that will win the trick. If he has no such card, he's called for a card that isn't in dummy, so 46B4 comes into play. The same would be true if dummy does have cards of the suit led, but they're all lower than the highest card played so far. it seems like you're interpreting 46B4 as only applying when declarer makes a proper designation per 46A, rather than applying to the card described by applying the disambiguation rules in 46B1-3. I disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2017 But the new law specifically says "of the suit led", so it can't be a request to play a trump. It's a request to play the lowest card of the suit led that will win the trick. If he has no such card, he's called for a card that isn't in dummy, so 46B4 comes into play. The same would be true if dummy does have cards of the suit led, but they're all lower than the highest card played so far. it seems like you're interpreting 46B4 as only applying when declarer makes a proper designation per 46A, rather than applying to the card described by applying the disambiguation rules in 46B1-3. I disagree.Your interpretation is also very reasonable. However, you are effectively saying, if declarer knows he can win the trick, and says "Win", he is not obliged to do so if he cannot win the trick by playing a card of the same suit. I disagree. Your interpretation might be correct if 46B4 said:If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, or does not unambiguously specify a card, the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card. We will still get arguments as to what "win" means, of course. I think "win" means the lowest card in the same suit that is known will win the trick, else the lowest trump that is known will the trick where dummy does not have a card of the suit led. I suggested to the WBFLC the following change: If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick (or similar), and dummy is last to play, he is deemed to have called the lowest card that will win the trick. Otherwise, dummy is deemed to play the highest card of the suit led, or the highest trump in dummy. It also probably needs clarification as to how "over-ruff", "under-ruff", "cover", "duck", and many of the terms very commonly used are applied when the call can be fulfilled in more than one way. I think all are requests to play the lowest card that complies with the accepted meaning of the word, but if dummy cannot comply - for example RR says "over-ruff" and the contract is no-trumps - then declarer may designate any legal card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 2, 2017 Report Share Posted March 2, 2017 I suggested to the WBFLC the following change: If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick (or similar), and dummy is last to play, he is deemed to have called the lowest card that will win the trick. Otherwise, dummy is deemed to play the highest card of the suit led, or the highest trump in dummy.You still need language in 46B4 to deal with what happens if dummy doesn't have any of these cards. Why declarer would say "win" when dummy is out of both the suit led and trumps escapes me, but I'm sure SB could find a way to turn it to his advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2017 You still need language in 46B4 to deal with what happens if dummy doesn't have any of these cards. Why declarer would say "win" when dummy is out of both the suit led and trumps escapes me, but I'm sure SB could find a way to turn it to his advantage.I am happy with your interpretation of 46B4 as it stands when dummy cannot comply with the instruction, the same as when dummy does not have the card named. I don't think this causes a problem, but by all means suggest that something is added to 46B4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 2, 2017 Report Share Posted March 2, 2017 How terrible would it be if Law 46B simply said "if declarer does not comply with Law 46A, his instruction to dummy is void and he must comply with Law 46A"? Yeah, there will be a lot of director calls for a while, but eventually even bridge players can change their ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 2, 2017 Report Share Posted March 2, 2017 I think there will be few director calls, because most players won't change their ways. You'll only get director calls from players who know about the change to the law, have changed their own style, and are willing to make an issue of it when the opponents continue the traditional designations. But I suspect that in 90% of cases, both sides use abbreviated designations, so no one will call the TD on either of them. 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.