Do you alert cue bids (Michaels, UCB etc)

[pran]

Just using the word "play" automatically indicates the lowest card of the suit - Law 46

 

"2. If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of

the suit indicated."

Exactly, but if declarer does not specify a suit then no suit is indicated by declarer.

The fact that dummy by law must follow a suit led is immaterial in this respect.

 

So "play" automatically invokes Law 46B5.

[weejonnie]

Exactly, but if declarer does not specify a suit then no suit is indicated by declarer.

The fact that dummy by law must follow a suit led is immaterial in this respect.

 

So "play" automatically invokes Law 46B5.

Well it would other than for law 44C

 

C. Requirement to Follow Suit

In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over

all other requirements of these Laws.

[barmar]

If I were to express the desire that people do anything in particular, it would be that they comply with Law 46B1. If everyone did that all the time there would be no occasion for confusion or controversy over what was meant.

Got any more windmills you want to tilt at?

 

Actually, I know you do: people who just pick up their bidding cards instead of placing the final Pass card.

 

At the club last night, I estimate that about 25% of declarers said "play" to mean "follow suit low". But it's not a large sample set, it was a 4.5 table game.

[pran]

Exactly, but if declarer does not specify a suit then no suit is indicated by declarer.

The fact that dummy by law must follow a suit led is immaterial in this respect.

 

So "play" automatically invokes Law 46B5.

 

 

Well it would other than for law 44C

 

C. Requirement to Follow Suit

In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over

all other requirements of these Laws.

 

It is not illegal for Declarer to designate another suit from Dummy than the one led, but it is of course illegal for Dummy to play according to such designation.

 

And if Declarer designates neither suit nor rank then Law 46B5 allows either defender to select the card to be played from Dummy.

Again, the resulting play from Dummy must of course be legal.

 

Frankly I cannot understand why this simple (and reasonable) law can create so much discussion?

[pran]

Got any more windmills you want to tilt at?

 

Actually, I know you do: people who just pick up their bidding cards instead of placing the final Pass card.

 

At the club last night, I estimate that about 25% of declarers said "play" to mean "follow suit low". But it's not a large sample set, it was a 4.5 table game.

 

Maybe the "play" was incontrovertible?

[pescetom]

Frankly I cannot understand why this simple (and reasonable) law can create so much discussion?

Probably because it spends more time trying to be reasonable than to be simple, like much of bridge law.

[blackshoe]

Dummy is required to follow declarer's instructions in playing cards from the dummy. Also, if declarer commits an irregularity, dummy is not permitted to call attention to it. Thus, if declarer calls for a card not of the suit led, when there is a card of the suit led in the dummy, dummy the player has no choice but to put that card in the played position, unless someone calls the director before he does so. The illegality here is declarer's, not dummy's. B-)

[weejonnie]

Dummy is required to follow declarer's instructions in playing cards from the dummy. Also, if declarer commits an irregularity, dummy is not permitted to call attention to it. Thus, if declarer calls for a card not of the suit led, when there is a card of the suit led in the dummy, dummy the player has no choice but to put that card in the played position, unless someone calls the director before he does so. The illegality here is declarer's, not dummy's. B-)

Note the wording of the 'require to follow suit' overrides all other laws. Dummy of course has the specific duty to ensure that dummy follows suit. (This was new in the 2017 laws).

[blackshoe]

Law 42A3: He plays the cards of the dummy as declarer’s agent as directed and ensures that dummy follows suit (see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play).

Law 45F: After dummy’s hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement) without instruction from declarer. If he does so the Director should be summoned forthwith and informed of the action. Play continues. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to declarer and the defenders were damaged by the play suggested.

Law 43A1{b}: Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.

Law 43A1{c}: Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

Law 43B1: Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of the limitations listed in A1 and A2.

Introduction to the Laws: Established usage has been retained regarding “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), ”shall” do (a violation will incur a penalty more often than not), and “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong, but “may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”.

Given all of the above, what do you suggest dummy do when declarer calls for a card not of the suit led, when the dummy has such a card?

[Vampyr]

I am seriously going to argue that the proper way to call for a card from dummy is to name the rank and denomination of the card, and that not doing it that way is an infraction of law.

 

This is a little unreasonable, since naming the suit is unnecessary when the suit was led by another person. “Top”, small, Jack etc all OK when the suit is already known.

[pran]

Dummy is required to follow declarer's instructions in playing cards from the dummy. Also, if declarer commits an irregularity, dummy is not permitted to call attention to it. Thus, if declarer calls for a card not of the suit led, when there is a card of the suit led in the dummy, dummy the player has no choice but to put that card in the played position, unless someone calls the director before he does so. The illegality here is declarer's, not dummy's. B-)

Simply just incorrect:

In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.

 

Note the wording of the 'require to follow suit' overrides all other laws. Dummy of course has the specific duty to ensure that dummy follows suit. (This was new in the 2017 laws).

Law 44C has remained (essentially) unchanged since (at least) 1936!

[pescetom]

This is a little unreasonable, since naming the suit is unnecessary when the suit was led by another person. “Top”, small, Jack etc all OK when the suit is already known.

Given dummy's duty to follow suit, just calling "small" should obtain the effect desired by calling "play", without the same risk of falling foul of the law. It sounds even sillier though. Hopefully the law makers will simplify things before electronic play makes the whole debate irrelevant.

[sanst]

Law 44C said:

In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.

 

Law 44C has remained (essentially) unchanged since (at least) 1936!

Totally OT: that doesn’t surprise me. It looks quite old fashioned since it doesn’t add anything, but was deemed necessary in the days that the laws were just some rules about the game, not a set of legal niceties that are endlessly discussed on internet fora (forums?). Literally it implies that to revoke is the gravest possible offence, but it is not. That qualification has been given to “exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws”. I know players who state that that isn’t right either; they think a breach of Law 74A, especially the use of physical or psychological force, insults and abuse, deserves that stamp.

[barmar]

Totally OT: that doesn’t surprise me. It looks quite old fashioned since it doesn’t add anything, but was deemed necessary in the days that the laws were just some rules about the game, not a set of legal niceties that are endlessly discussed on internet fora (forums?). Literally it implies that to revoke is the gravest possible offence, but it is not. That qualification has been given to “exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws”. I know players who state that that isn’t right either; they think a breach of Law 74A, especially the use of physical or psychological force, insults and abuse, deserves that stamp.

Precedence is only relevant if you have to choose which law to apply in a given situation. Since none of those laws apply in the situation where 44C is applicable, it doesn't make much sense to say that they're less important than it. We may consider them more important because of how violations affect the game in general.

 

Of course, if people routinely violated 44C, it wouldn't even be the same game.

[blackshoe]

It's unreasonable to expect folks to follow the rules, because "nobody" does that. I get it. But the laws define proper procedure, and they do not say that "top, "small", "Jack", or whatever is proper procedure.

[pescetom]

It's unreasonable to expect folks to follow the rules, because "nobody" does that. I get it. But the laws define proper procedure, and they do not say that "top, "small", "Jack", or whatever is proper procedure.

Yet they do regulate the interpretation of such terms and impose related restrictions. I can't think of any other sport or realm of life where the laws describe the correct way to commit an infraction.

[barmar]

It's unreasonable to expect folks to follow the rules, because "nobody" does that. I get it. But the laws define proper procedure, and they do not say that "top, "small", "Jack", or whatever is proper procedure.

The real problem is that nobody reads the Laws. They learn the game from other players. If older players say "play", the newer players will pick it up, and it just continues.

 

Most players are woefully ignorant of what parts of the game are officially required and what are just traditions. If you poll players who aren't directors and don't actively participate in discussions like these, I think you would find that most of them don't know that the following are required in the Laws: the way cards are laid out in dummy (trumps on dummy's right, cards ordered within suits), the way quitted tricks are pointed, opening lead face down (but not asking "any questions, partner?"), shuffling cards before putting them back in the board, counting your cards when removing from the board.

 

I think most would be very surprised to know about Law 46 explicitly stating how to interpret various incomplete designations. I'm sure most of them assume that any designation that's easily understood is OK.

 

Players learn this stuff much the same way they learn language as children, by osmosis. Expecting them to follow the official rules for minutiae like this is like expecting people to speak perfectly grammatically.

[pescetom]

The real problem is that nobody reads the Laws.

The real problem is that in many cases (including this one) the Laws are not very good.

[Vampyr]

opening lead face down (but not asking "any questions, partner?"),

 

To be fair, this one serves a purpose. If OL’s partner wants to ask about the auction while the bidding cards are still on the table, it doesn’t hurt to give him a bit of time to ask when the face-down opening lead is made. It is a nuisance and a waste of time to have to put the bidding cards out again after dummy is faced and it is the third players turn to ply.

[blackshoe]

I can't imagine putting the bidding cards back out at third player's turn. Never seen it happen here. In fact, the only time I've seen players put bidding cards back on the table after they've picked them up is when I still have a call, and have not moved, said anything, or touched my bidding cards. They look at me, utter a confused "oh", and put them back. But the normal procedure is that bidding cards disappear as soon as somebody thinks a "final bid" has been made. E.g., 1NT-P-3NT-bidding cards disappear. :-(

 

Even "please explain your auction" doesn't need bidding cards on the table. Nor should answers to that question include a review of the bidding; that's not what was asked. Of course, what usually happens is a reluctant "well, my partner opened 1!C..." followed by a long pause as if the player doesn't know what to say next, or he's waiting for his partner to continue with "and my partner then bid 1!D..." again followed by a pause.

 

Maybe we should hold "how to answer questions" drills. :rolleyes:

 

And of course, the chance that an opening lead will be made face up is considerably higher than zero, at least around here.

[axman]

The real problem is that nobody reads the Laws. They learn the game from other players. If older players say "play", the newer players will pick it up, and it just continues.

 

Most players are woefully ignorant …..

 

I thought you said, 'Most players are woefully arrogant '

:)

[Vampyr]

Given dummy's duty to follow suit, just calling "small" should obtain the effect desired by calling "play", without the same risk of falling foul of the law. It sounds even sillier though. Hopefully the law makers will simplify things before electronic play makes the whole debate irrelevant.

 

No, “play” means any card.

[Vampyr]

Even "please explain your auction" doesn't need bidding cards on the table.

 

It does, actually, you may want to know about alternative calls, etc. Just “partner has shown blah blah blah and I have shown bleh bleh bleh” may not be sufficient and may not be entirely complete. Also it can be useful to know what dummy has shown before declarer has had a look at dummy.

 

If players put their bidding cards back in the box before the opening lead is made face down, well that is your problem, not one for the rest of the world. That is, until the ACBL enshrine the practice in law. I am a realist and know that it is only a matter of time.

 

To be honest I have asked for the bidding cards to be replaced at third player’s turn only a couple of times. Usually if the bidding cards are taken away too early the other side will require them to be put back before the opening lead is made.

[blackshoe]

What's wrong with "what alternative calls to the 2!S your partner actually bid did he have available, and what would they mean"? After all, you kind of need to remember the auction after the bidding cards are removed anyway. B-)

[pescetom]

No, “play” means any card.

I was talking about a hypothesis of revised and more logical rules. Asking dummy to play any card is not logical when you can obtain the lowest card in the legal suit with just one word.