Incontrovertible or Not?

[nige1]

• The law-breaker (declarer) drew attention to his own infraction ("Sorry, Queen"). Under current law, whether or not the defenders were secretary birds, they were right to comply with the law and call the director.
• Under current law, directors seem to rule unanimously, in favour of law-breakers, whenever there is sufficient scope for judgement. Admittedly, directors are meant to use their judgement. And players are beginning to take the trend on board.
• Had the director ruled that defenders were entitled to the trick (as many posters believe) then defenders should be allowed to accept, it without incurring criticism
• If players suspect that director is mistaken, then they are entitled to appeal his ruling, without adverse comment.
• Surprizing that Lamford's SuperLeaguers approve Declarer's successful attempt "to gain a trick" but criticize defenders' vain efforts to retrieve it. As declarer, Michael Rosenberg would probably accept his mistake, with good grace.

I am sure that Michael Rosenberg's opponents would not call the TD, nor would the Superleaguer's opponents. And I am sure that the TD would rule, even more so in Michael's case, that his intention was incontrovertible.

"All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" - reportedly, Jesus.

With a declarer like Michael Rosenberg, defenders might not need to call the director. Such declarers tend to acknowledge and accept their mistakes :).But if another declarer did attempt to change his designation, here are some more considerations for the director ...

• Declarer's "small" designation is illegal. Arguably, after an infraction, in doubtful cases, the director should rule against the law-breaker.
• What's the explanation for declarer's "small" designation? Declarer thinks he has led ♥K from hand but belatedly discovers he has led ♥2? Many BBOers, seem to judge such a mistake to be a slip of the mind. Although this is a likely explanation, only a mind-reader would claim that declarer's original intention to play small from dummy was incontrovertible :(
• Of course, sympathetic directors are entitled to the radically different subjective judgement backed by lamford (assuming that they interrogate declarer about his prior thoughts, and trust declarer's recollections).

.

[lamford]

Declarer's "small" designation is illegal. Arguably, after an infraction, in doubtful cases, the director should rule against the law-breaker.

A breach of "proper form" but not "illegal". If it were "illegal" then the TD would have to be called, which, at our club would be about 10 times per hand, so 240 times per table, or about 3600 times per evening. And no, the TD must rule according to the Law which is that whenever he thinks "declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible" he rules that the queen is played. Must rule, not may rule that way. And I would expect Michael Rosenborg to do nothing, but if the TD were called by the opponents, he would wait for the obvious ruling in his favour.

[blackshoe]

A breach of "proper form" but not "illegal". If it were "illegal" then the TD would have to be called, which, at our club would be about 10 times per hand, so 240 times per table, or about 3600 times per evening. And no, the TD must rule according to the Law which is that whenever he thinks "declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible" he rules that the queen is played. Must rule, not may rule that way. And I would expect Michael Rosenborg to do nothing, but if the TD were called by the opponents, he would wait for the obvious ruling in his favour.

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

Introduction to the laws, in part: …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…

Failure to do what one should do as stated in Law 46A is an infraction of law, hence illegal.

Law 9: A. Drawing Attention to an Irregularity

1. Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

…

5. There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partner’s apparently mistaken explanation).

Introduction to the laws, in part: …regarding “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong)…

There is no obligation on any player to draw attention to any infraction of law by either side. "3600 times per evening" is just nonsense.

[lamford]

Failure to do what one should do as stated in Law 46A is an infraction of law, hence illegal.

 

 

There is no obligation on any player to draw attention to any infraction of law by either side. "3600 times per evening" is just nonsense.

OK, if there are four SBs at each table, they would be in their rights to call for the TD 3600 times per session if it is illegal, which would be unworkable. It does go on to say: "failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised". I don't think calling "small" is EVER penalised (other than being made to play small!), so has ceased to be "illegal" in the same way as a driver not having a bale of hay in a London taxi, still technically against the Law, is illegal.

[blackshoe]

The rules of a game are not the laws of the land.

[PeterAlan]

... so has ceased to be "illegal" in the same way as a driver not having a bale of hay in a London taxi, still technically against the Law, is illegal.

Not in quite the same way, since the section of the 1831 London Hackney Carriage Act that is interpreted (arguably mistakenly) as this requirement was actually abolished in 1976, a rather more comprehensive method of removing "illegality".

[sanst]

OK, if there are four SBs at each table, they would be in their rights to call for the TD 3600 times per session if it is illegal, which would be unworkable. It does go on to say: "failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised". I don't think calling "small" is EVER penalised (other than being made to play small!), so has ceased to be "illegal" in the same way as a driver not having a bale of hay in a London taxi, still technically against the Law, is illegal.

That’s an urban myth (London Hackneys Required to Carry Hay).

[nige1]

I believe the legal term "beyond reasonable doubt" applies here. Declarer's mind might have wandered, but as a defender I would accept the revised card in the interests of fair play. Declarer would never had wanted to play small here, so a declarer having rectified the announcement promptly before dummy had a chance to offer a card from the table should be allowed to continue with the revised card.

A likely explanation for declarer asking dummy to play "small" is that declarer thinks he led ♥K from hand.

For a defender to try to profit from a situation like this is not in the interests of playing bridge in a fair and friendly manner. I would be horrified if, as a declarer, a defender had called the TD here. We all make mistakes when playing the cards. The intention to play the ♥Q should be paramount to what was actually said, especially if the error was rectified quickly before the opponents had played a card.

Some law-abiding declarers might recognize their mistake and accept its consequences, without complaint, fostering a fair and friendly game.

[lamford]

A likely explanation for declarer asking dummy to play "small" is that declarer thinks he led ♥K from hand. Some law-abiding declarers might recognize their mistake and accept its consequences, without complaint, fostering a fair and friendly game.

It is up to the TD, not the declarer, nor the defenders, to decide on what declarer's incontrovertible intention was. If it was to play the queen, declarer would be foolish to accept that it was not. The fair and friendly game is when the TD rules correctly.

[nige1]

It is up to the TD, not the declarer, nor the defenders, to decide on what declarer's incontrovertible intention was. If it was to play the queen, declarer would be foolish to accept that it was not. The fair and friendly game is when the TD rules correctly.

If declarer is aware that his original intent was to play small, then, arguably, he shouldn't seek a favorable ruling.

[mycroft]

I am not offering an opinion on this ruling specifically at all, just using the hand to comment in general.

 

I am harsh on unintended designations, probably too harsh, and I have to find and reread the ACBL's note giving examples of what we will accept and what we will not. I laud this note, by the way, and I feel obliged to publicly say that after all the times that I have requested regular "case law and interpretations". It would be hypocritical to not follow the line shown when they follow my path to show it to me, no matter my personal belief.

 

[Edit: found. Changing a Called Card from Dummy, from the "Rulings FAQ" page.]

 

Frequently, when I get a call like this, declarer is adamant that it's totally unreasonable to do anything but [the right thing], and they're frequently right. I also have frequently heard from them later that they were a trick ahead of themselves, and called small because "after I win the Q, I'll lead small" - losing the fact that they have to win the Q first. Well, when declarer plays a card "to the next trick" out of their hand, it's a played card. Why is it "incontrovertible" that that didn't happen, because it's dummy?

 

But, I hear someone say, "he has all the tricks after he knocks out the A. Obviously, that's what he's doing and he should be allowed to do that." Well, if that's the case, why didn't he claim "knock out the ♥A." I also frequently get complaints from certain declarers that "this is obviously what I was doing, I was [in a claimer]." "Well then, why didn't you claim?" To which I get a response that boils down to "I didn't say exactly the right thing one time, and lost a trick to a stupid director ['who can't play', in some interpretations]. So I don't claim ['unless it's all good|all in one hand|[]']." To which my response, frankly, is "well, you didn't say exactly the right thing here, either, and this [stupid] director is ruling that you lose another trick."

 

Now, to those who don't claim against the C-est of C players if there's any complication, because it's going to take longer to explain that "yes, I'm giving you a trick" and "no, you don't get that other one because" than it is to play it out, I have some sympathy (because they're right). But bridge is a game of mistakes, and there is a culture that "some mistakes are real mistakes, and some are just mistakes according to the Law. I and my friends are too good bridge players to be required to pay for 'not real' mistakes." As a TD and (occasional) SB. you can guess my opinion of that culture.

[lamford]

If declarer is aware that his original intent was to play small, then, arguably, he shouldn't seek a favorable ruling.

Here we agree. Declarer should tell the truth. If he intended to duck a heart in both hands, then he should state this. The declarer in question stated that he intended to play the queen.

[nige1]

Here we agree. Declarer should tell the truth. If he intended to duck a heart in both hands, then he should state this. The declarer in question stated that he intended to play the queen.

• An interesting question is how declarer might describe his original thoughts and intentions, when he played "Small"?
• It's unlikely that he intended to duck in both hands but he might think he had led ♥K from hand.
• Dummy didn't play a card and declarer tried to correct his mistake. Declarer's subsequent intention, to play ♥Q from dummy is clear when he says "Sorry Queen".
• At that stage, declarer realized that he hadn't led ♥K from hand.

[lamford]

• An interesting question is how declarer might describe his original thoughts and intentions, when he played "Small"?
• It's unlikely that he intended to duck in both hands but he might think he had led ♥K from hand.
• Dummy didn't play a card and declarer tried to correct his mistake. Declarer's subsequent intention, to play ♥Q from dummy is clear when he says "Sorry Queen".
• At that stage, declarer realized that he hadn't led ♥K from hand.

When declarer said "small", the wrong word came out of his mouth and was heard by his ears. At that point, he realised that he had intended to say "queen". Senator Hillary Clinton “misspoke” when she said she had to evade sniper fire when she was visiting Bosnia in 1996. She meant to say that she would have had to evade sniper fire if she had not been in an armoured car.