How desperate are you to win?

[Tramticket]

[hv=pc=n&s=s86hd964c8&w=sj5h62dj8c&n=skq9hdakqc&e=sat4h87dtc]399|300[/hv]

 

Club Night Pairs.

Contract: 3NT.

 

Declarer (South) has been running the club suit and has now reached this position. On his last club, he now has to make a discard from dummy. He calls "any". Dummy plays the queen of diamonds and I (East) discard the ♠4. As I am playing this card, declarer suddenly wakes up and says "No, I mean a low spade - obviously". It might be obvious that he should play a low spade, but I was far from convinced that it was obvious to him when he called for "any" and suspect that he had forgotten that the ♠A had not been played. Dummy didn't seem to be following play either.

 

I called the director but, when they started arguing, I told the director that I didn't want to pursue the point (feeling a bit embarrassed).

 

How do you feel about this incident?

[pescetom]

I think the poll is poorly conceived: why should I agree with two of those?

 

In your place, I would call the Director, but neither insist on what he should decide nor accept a decision not motivated by law.

In Director's place, I wouldn't have been influenced by your change of mind.

In dummy's place, I would have chosen the same card, or asked you to choose.

In declarer's place, I would insist on conceding a spade and two hearts.

 

I also think that calling the Director here has nothing to do with desperation to win.

[Tramticket]

I think the poll is poorly conceived: why should I agree with two of those?

 

Fair enough. It was a tool for getting opinions. :)

[steve2005]

Declarer has completely misplayed hand by calling any! True even if they thought A♠ gone as dummy could throw KQ♠ .

First Q♦ is a trick. Declarer should play last club then take 3♦.

Then lead a spade and presumably lose to A♠ and a heart. After Q

♦ loose a spade and 2 hearts.

Opponents have the right to name the card to be played if declarer calls any. I have no sympathy for this declarer.

[cherdano]

As declarer, it depends on what I meant. If by "any" I meant "any spade" I would explain so. If by "any" I meant "any card" I would give the defense three tricks.

As defender, I'd let declarer get his three tricks unless she is quite experienced (in which case it would depend on whether I thought she meant "any spade" or "any card"). My goal at the club night is to play well, not to make enemies.

[phoenixmj]

I think that calling the director should not be a "big deal" in that it is proper protocol. My experience at the club is that newer players take it personally if you call the director - even if it is obviously a situation that demands it such as a revoke or a lead out of turn. More experienced players understand that calling the director is just part of the game to sort out the rules so that everyone is treated fairly. It is not an insult to their game and it is not personal.

 

On that note - I think director probably should be called because it is the proper thing to do. Once someone experiences an emotionless director call a couple of times, they get over that fear of a director call. I remember one of the first times a director was called on me for hesitating during the bidding process. I was rattled because I did not want anyone to think I was cheating and in retrospect - what was the big deal. The director call was proper. They were protected in case partner inferred something from my hesitation and bid accordingly. As it happened - he passed and intended to pass all along and my hesitation did not and should not play into that. Another time - my partner hesitated and I had intended to bid all along - so when it rolled around to me I bid and opponents called the director to protect themselves after the hesitation. By this time I was used to director calls so I understood it was not personal. The director let my bid stand because it was an obvious bid.

 

I did not perceive my opponents as wanting to win at all costs - but simply wanting the game to be fair. We were friends before and after - no problem.

 

Once called - the director should be allowed to do their job and just make a ruling without any emotional response by any of the players. Just the facts. Interpreting what the declarer "meant" may or may not be material to the director. It is the director's call.

 

I have had many times wished I had called the director in retrospect. In a tournament - a declarer called for a card and then changed their mind and it made a big difference in outcome. Whether that was allowed or not is something that i think should have gotten a ruling. But the opponent was openly hostile and with quite a voice said - "you can call the director if you want" and I backed down. No one wants to get into a fight at the table. But, the whole purpose of a director is to avoid this type of intimidation.

 

So - I did not vote - but I think the director should be called uniformly. It is not a case of trying to win at all costs, but simply following the rules of the game. Now - someone who has been playing just a few months - I might look the other way. But really, you are helping them learn the game by calling the director.

[pescetom]

Fair enough. It was a tool for getting opinions. :)

 

I understand, and chose the two closest to what I think. :)

[barmar]

Maybe it should have been two polls, one for the defender, one for declarer.

[Vampyr]

I understand, and chose the two closest to what I think. :)

 

Yes, me too. I would not consider it my right to “insist” on anything if the director is making a ruling.

[nige1]

• A player who wants to play Bridge should comply with its rules.
• If declarer wants to change the card that he played from dummy, a player should call the director, rather than invent his own ruling.
• A player who disagrees with the director's ruling should appeal it, rather than argue with the director.
• A non-offender (a defender here) can ask the director, at the director's discretion, to waive rectification "for cause" (whatever that means) -- but few players would make that request here.

[IGoHomeNow]

[hv=pc=n&s=s86hd964c8&w=sj5h62dj8c&n=skq9hdakqc&e=sat4h87dtc]399|300[/hv]

 

Club Night Pairs.

Contract: 3NT.

 

Declarer (South) has been running the club suit and has now reached this position. On his last club, he now has to make a discard from dummy. He calls "any". Dummy plays the queen of diamonds and I (East) discard the ♠4. As I am playing this card, declarer suddenly wakes up and says "No, I mean a low spade - obviously". It might be obvious that he should play a low spade, but I was far from convinced that it was obvious to him when he called for "any" and suspect that he had forgotten that the ♠A had not been played. Dummy didn't seem to be following play either.

 

I called the director but, when they started arguing, I told the director that I didn't want to pursue the point (feeling a bit embarrassed).

 

How do you feel about this incident?

 

The use of the word "desperate" in this poll is disgusting. It implies that one who would choose to enforce the clear rules of the game is acting in a manner that is to be deemed something other than entirely appropriate."

 

As a defender in this spot, you are absolutely, 100% entitled to have the diamond play stand. It is entirely the responsibility of the declarer to make the proper call. Would you expect Belichick to decline the offsides penalty vs Dee Ford simply because it was a mistake that had no bearing on the play? So just how is this different? You play to win and that is all about capitalizing on mistakes by the opposition. So it cannot be unethical to do so here.

 

You are, of course, as a defender, not obligated to enforce this kind of rule, though I always do so.

[nekthen]

Clearly declarer needs a refresher course in Laws and Ethics before being allowed back to the club

[GrahamJson]

The laws seem pretty clear on this. Law 47 states:- “If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank (as by saying ‘play anything’ or words of like meaning) either defender may designate the play from dummy.“ So declarer has no cause to complain. As for the correct procedure, the TD should be called immediately and he should sort matters out. This is nothing personal, just sticking to the rules of the game.

[maartenxq]

I surely would have called the director and insist that he makes a decision based n what happened. I would not appeal.

 

This is as this incident occurred in a more or less serious competition. In the club I would let it go, depending on circumstances.

 

If opponent would be a beginner I would explain that this is not the way bridge is supposed to be played. If on the other hand he was the clubs self declared expert I would let him pay.

 

Maarten Baltussen

[etha]

never claim never call for any card from dummy always pick them up and play them. Even I would have called the td here.

[LBengtsson]

what card did he discard on the previous trick, or was there a ♣ in dummy at that time?? if he discarded a small ♠ on previous trick, then 'any' surely would say a ♠ again. dummy was a right dumbass not watching play and discarding a winning card.

[kenberg]

A point that I think no one has yet mentioned: Suppose you let it slide. And suppose that this pair comes in first. And suppose that had you called the director the D pitch would have been allowed to stand and then someone else would have come in first. Then your generosity in accepting the change of discard turns out to be generosity with someone else's result.

 

Still. I would be inclined to just let it go. I can see arguments for calling the director, and if the director is called I think he should say the discard stands. He did not accidentally say "any", rather he had lost his concentration, we all do that sometimes, he did it here, there is a cost. But generally I just let such things go.

[pescetom]

what card did he discard on the previous trick, or was there a ♣ in dummy at that time?? if he discarded a small ♠ on previous trick, then 'any' surely would say a ♠ again. dummy was a right dumbass not watching play and discarding a winning card.

 

Dummy was probably watching play and trying to be ethical.

 

The laws say that Dummy must not participate in the play, and also that if declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank (as by saying ‘play anything’ or similar) either defender may designate the play from dummy.

[msjennifer]

Sir calling the director has NOTHING TO DOI WITH DESPERATION to win at all costs.If it was an unimportant game I would condone the oversight and would not call the director.As per the conduct of the game any player except the dummy should call the director if ANY INFRINGEMENT occurs at the table.When Declarer said ANY then he should have corrected himself IN THE SAME BREATH as per the rules..Furthermore when the RHO followed to the trick it was too late for any correction.The late correction is an infringement.In a tournament of seriously minded players I,personally,,would certainly have called the Director and appealed had he allowed the card to be withdrawn.

[nekthen]

People when you call the director, as you should IF you believe there has been an infringement, then you tell him/her what happened. The director consults the book and makes a ruling. You do not argue. You accept the decision and get on with the game.

If you think you can do better, by all means get trained and and become a director.

[DCal]

It is not a matter of desperation. It is a matter of the rules of the game. The declarer called "any." Defenders are empowered to name the card to be played from dummy. If it is truly a contest, it is a matter of following the rules. Any one of us, almost certainly, has mistakenly called for the wrong card and not realized until too late that he or she had erred. This is the same situation. I have regretted the time or two that I have made such an error, but it never occurred to me ask anyone to let me take back my call. Additionally, I do not think that the director has the authority to just let a violation of the rules go.

[eagles123]

I tend not to bother calling director in club duplicates, other than unavoidable revoke/LOOT type calls I've called once ever, and that was when someone vul vs not after 1N p p bid 2s on jxxxx xxx qxx xxx after a long tank from their partner lol

 

however I think if you call director, which you're totally within your rights to, the actions of opponents kicking up a fuss/arguing is despicable.

[pescetom]

People when you call the director, as you should IF you believe there has been an infringement, then you tell him/her what happened. The director consults the book and makes a ruling. You do not argue. You accept the decision and get on with the game.

If you think you can do better, by all means get trained and and become a director.

 

I fully agree with you up to "you accept the decision". It's generally the case, but not automatic. If you are not convinced then you do not argue but you do ask why, and if he/she was unable to convince you by citing laws and regulations then you should politely say so and get on with the game but appeal later. Directors make mistakes too, as this one did. There is process to deal with it.

[rmnka447]

The problem is that declarer could have avoided the problem altogether by designating that ♠ 9 be discarded instead of saying to discard any card.

 

If I was declarer I'd accept that an error was made and concede a ♠ and 2 ♥.

 

I'd also call the director if I was a defender and let the director rule. It was an irregularity, so it's up to the director to sort things out.

 

Look, we all make silly mistakes from time to time, if we are competent players then we should accept when we do so.

 

Where I might be a tad more understanding is if the declarer involved was a novice/newer player who is struggling to adjust to playing competitive bridge. The last thing that I'd want to do is turn off that player to playing duplicate by being overly strident trying to enforce the rules.

[SilentSong]

I find the heading on the poll extremely disappointing, "how desperate are you to win?" because that shames the defenders for doing what they should do, call the director, get the ruling, and move on. It also seems to justify declarer arguing with the director. The director should have shut down any arguing. This is a simple decision. The poll should be titled more along the lines of, "do you have the class to accept the consequences of your own error?"