Law 45C4(b) again - calling "small" or "play" on lead from dummy

[BudH]

The specifics of the board (Board 33 of the Common Game, http://thecommongame.com/ClubWebHost/121624/191212A.html#board_results33, club ace opening lead from South) I don't think are that important to this question.

 

At Trick 10, opening leader shifts to diamonds and declaarer calls for dummy's ace with dummy holding

 

♠----

♥6

♦A76

♣----

 

The ♥6 is a winner. The ♦6 and♦7 are losers.

 

After winning the ace in dummy, declarer says "small" or "play". Declarer's RHO plays a diamond and then I am called to the table, since declarer's intent was for the heart winner to be played, not a diamond loser.

 

Assume declarer did not play to the trick, otherwise you cannot allow a correction for any reason.

 

Law 463B(a) which says "in leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit with which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit", indicating saying "small" or "play" means the suit (diamonds) that won the trick is the suit to be led. Does 45C4(b) override this, allowing declarer to change dummy's card from the diamond loser to the heart winner?

 

(In this case, playing one of the small diamonds would be clearly non-sensical.)

[blackshoe]

I would let hm change the designation.

[sanst]

No law forbids a nonsensical play, so that’s no reason to allow the change. The “except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible“ clause in 46B is as useless as the “unintended” in 45C4b and I would allow a change on that basis in the same circumstances, which is almost never. If you designate a card in accordance with the laws, it’s played and there’s no turning back, however stupid the play is. We don’t allow defenders to pick up a card that’s played by accident, even if it’s dropped. So, why allow a declarer to change a play if he doesn’t name the suit he wants to play?

[pran]

I can imagine one situation (only) where I might allow the change and let him play the ♥6:

If in the last previous tricks he had run winning hearts from his own hand and had one more heart in Dummy which he could only reach by entering Dummy with the ♦A.

 

Even then I would probably rule carelessness if he failed to somehow explicitly specify that he entered Dummy for the sole purpose of cashing his last heart.

 

Edit: After looking at the link I find that there is no way this can be the situation, so the play of a diamond stands.

 

But I find this statement in OP very confusing: At Trick 10, opening leader shifts to diamonds and calls for dummy's ace with dummy holding

"opening leader ..... calls for dummy's ace"?

[VixTD]

Law 46B3(a) notwithstanding, it is unusual for declarer to call "small" when switching to a different suit without specifying the suit, so that makes me think that declarer's intention was to play a small diamond when they said "small". If they had intended to play the heart next, "heart" would be the normal shorthand designation.

 

However, it is entirely possible that what was in declarer's mind the whole time was to cash the heart and "small" slipped out inadvertently, or declarer said "small" intending it to refer to the heart, so I would try to find out the precise order and speed of events, when and how declarer reacted when they realised the diamond had been played, and allow declarer to change the card if I am convinced their other intention was incontrovertible.

[pescetom]

I think this discussion is about calling "small", because if he called "play" then I read Law 46B5 as allowing the opponent to choose a diamond continuation whatever declarer intended.

 

Law 46B3(a) notwithstanding, it is unusual for declarer to call "small" when switching to a different suit without specifying the suit, so that makes me think that declarer's intention was to play a small diamond when they said "small". If they had intended to play the heart next, "heart" would be the normal shorthand designation.

 

However, it is entirely possible that what was in declarer's mind the whole time was to cash the heart and "small" slipped out inadvertently, or declarer said "small" intending it to refer to the heart, so I would try to find out the precise order and speed of events, when and how declarer reacted when they realised the diamond had been played, and allow declarer to change the card if I am convinced their other intention was incontrovertible.

True, but Law 45C says "A change of designation may be allowed after a slip of the tongue, but not after a loss of concentration or a reconsideration of action." Calling "spade" (having none) instead of "heart" would be a slip of the tongue, but calling "small" when intending to play the only card in a different suit arguably denotes a loss of concentration, even if related more to the form of words than the intended action.

There is also a real possibility that declarer had forgotten the heart was a winner and only woke up when the opponent hurriedly played to diamonds or dummy grimaced - I don't see how director will be able to find out. Even if he had gone to dummy purposely to cash the last heart, as pran discussed, there is a possibility he forgot that when playing the Ace of diamonds or had a sudden panic that he had miscounted (hands up those who never had a dumb blackout during declarer play).

[barmar]

But I find this statement in OP very confusing: At Trick 10, opening leader shifts to diamonds and calls for dummy's ace with dummy holding

"opening leader ..... calls for dummy's ace"?

The OP presumably mistyped and meant to say "declarer".

[barmar]

In my experience, declarers generally only say "play" when they're following suit with insignificant cards in dummy -- I can't recall ever hearing it when leading from dummy. "Small" is sometimes used when leading, but players know that it means continuing the same suit.

 

So the only possibility is 45C4(b), considering this to be a slip of the tongue. Although the phrase "same breath" no longer appears in the Laws (I'm not sure if it ever did, but was just in RA guidelines), that's usually the best test for this -- if declarer says something like "small ... I mean heart" I would allow it (in practice, the opponents usually accept this type of correction without even calling the TD).

 

Without evidence of such an attempt to correct immediately, I'd consider this to be a careless slip of the mind, not an unintended designation, so the correction is disallowed.

[BudH]

But I find this statement in OP very confusing: At Trick 10, opening leader shifts to diamonds and calls for dummy's ace with dummy holding

"opening leader ..... calls for dummy's ace"?

Corrected: "At Trick 10, opening leader shifts to diamonds and DECLARER calls for dummy's ace with dummy holding.."

[BudH]

When this happened at the table, there was a bit more to it. It was near the end of round, the room was noisier than usual, and declarer's RHO heard "small" and declarer told me he said "small heart". It was going to be the case of "he said, she said" and with the extra information that continuing diamonds was ridiculous, I ruled the heart could be played.

 

But I deliberately left that other part out. I wanted to know the opinion without the aspect of the mishearing what was spoken.

 

It appears to me the cases where dummy is leading to a trick are far less likely to allow Law 45C4(b) than other cases, and that declarer leading and dummy playing third to the trick are by far the most common cases where application of 45C4(b) is allowed.

[pran]

When this happened at the table, there was a bit more to it. It was near the end of round, the room was noisier than usual, and declarer's RHO heard "small" and declarer told me he said "small heart". It was going to be the case of "he said, she said" and with the extra information that continuing diamonds was ridiculous, I ruled the heart could be played.

 

But I deliberately left that other part out. I wanted to know the opinion without the aspect of the mishearing what was spoken.

 

It appears to me the cases where dummy is leading to a trick are far less likely to allow Law 45C4(b) than other cases, and that declarer leading and dummy playing third to the trick are by far the most common cases where application of 45C4(b) is allowed.

Well, you left out all the important facts - which indeed completely changed the situation.

End of story

[barmar]

There's a big difference between misspeaking and being misheard. Usually at least one of the other players can corroborate what declarer claims they called, but if not it's "he said, she said", as you say.

[Cascade]

The proper procedure is:

 

"Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card" Law 45B

 

"When calling for a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card." Law 46A

 

"The Cards of each suit rank downward in the order Ace, King, Queen, Jack, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2. " Law 1A

 

Playing of a card by saying "small heart" or "small" etc is a variation from the proper procedure.

 

Law 46B is about resolving ambiguities when there has been an incomplete designation by declarer.

 

If there was a problem caused by an improper designation then there is a case for penalising declarer not following Law 46A.

[blackshoe]

If there was a problem caused by an improper designation then there is a case for penalising declarer not following Law 46A.

Yes, there is. But it would not go over well.

[mycroft]

I think the responses in the thread (which were my thought as well) would point me to the decision, if it really were a "he said, she said".

 

"It was noisy, and almost nobody calls 'small' from dummy when leading. The balance of probabilities is that declarer did say what he claimed, and you heard only the first word."

[lamford]

As far as I can see in the Laws, calling "small" on it own only has effect if dummy is second, third or fourth to play. Declarer did not call for a rank, therefore 46B3 does not apply. Does anyone think differently?

[blackshoe]

Well, he didn't designate a rank, and he didn't designate a suit. That seems to invoke 46B5:

 

Law 46B5: 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.

OTOH, even though "low" doesn't designate a rank, I think most directors would rule that declarer has called for the lowest card of the suit in which dummy won the previous trick. That isn't what the law says, but...

[sanst]

Well, he didn't designate a rank, and he didn't designate a suit. That seems to invoke 46B5:

 

 

OTOH, even though "low" doesn't designate a rank, I think most directors would rule that declarer has called for the lowest card of the suit in which dummy won the previous trick. That isn't what the law says, but...

It certainly is what the Laws imply:

 

45B1©

If he calls ‘low’, or words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit led.

...

45B3. If declarer designates a rank but not a suit:

(a) In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit with which the dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit.

[pran]

It certainly is what the Laws imply:

Not only implies, the law is explicit:

In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit with which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit.

[blackshoe]

Both of you have left out pertinent and important parts of the laws you’re quoting. Try again.

[pran]

Both of you have left out pertinent and important parts of the laws you’re quoting. Try again.

I assume you are thinking of

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.

 

Now how will you rule if Declarer in this situation says "Continue" or "Another"?

 

Shall law 46B5 or Law 46B3A prevail?

 

What is the (logical) difference between the words "Continue", "Another" or for instance "Low"?

[barmar]

I'm with pran and sanst.

 

If declarer says "small", we check B1c, which says it's the lowest card of the suit led. But what suit was led if dummy is leading rather than falling suit?

 

Since they didn't explicitly state a suit, we then go to B3a, which says it's the same suit as the previous trick.

 

B5 doesn't apply because "small" is not anything like "anything".

 

I surmise that blackshoe disputes that declarer has "designated a rank" when the rank is merely implied by application of B1, rather than stated explicitly. I don't think that's how most players interpret it -- the rank can be designated either explicitly using the "proper form", or implicitly following the rules in 46B.

[blackshoe]

And all of this fooforah would be avoided if the laws required proper procedure to be followed (see Law 46A).

[nige1]

And all of this fooforah would be avoided if the laws required proper procedure to be followed (see Law 46A).

Agree. the problem would rapidly disappear If players called the director for each play infraction by declarer; and the director imposed escalating procedural penalties.

 

Current law provides default interpretations, which seem to condone such infractions. Much better would be to define and legalize specified common designations, provided they're unambiguous in context (for example "Small" when dummy is following suit). The law would penalize designations that it didn't explicitly allow, especially any ambiguous play.

[pran]

And all of this fooforah would be avoided if the laws required proper procedure to be followed (see Law 46A).

Sure.

 

But we find in

The trends begun in the 2007 Revision have been continued - the increased discretion given to Tournament Directors, the attempts to rectify a situation rather than to penalise, and maintaining the position of Regulating Authorities. It is not expected that the Code herein will last indefinitely (indeed right up to the time of publication there were still ongoing discussions on certain laws) but the framework is there, tried and tested, for future editions.

and in

The purpose of the Laws remains unchanged. They are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy for when something goes wrong. They are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.

I have a huge problem imagining how the defenders might be damaged by using law 46B3A rather than law 46B5 in the situation we discuss here?