"Run the hearts"

[pran]

Never seemed worth any reaction to me, but then our players do follow a fairly logical set of rules, which do not coincide with Law 46A.

As you say this is (or should be) a non-issue, certainly not a major issue like when it is legal to touch the ball in soccer or when a sideways movement is legitimate in a cycling sprint (I confess ignorance about the fourth stone in curling).

A cynic might argue that this is because there is no significant advantage to be gained by violating this particular law.

I still think it could and should be better.

 

BTW, was there in 1907 a law equivalent to Law 46, or even an established routine for declarer to instruct dummy? I understood that it was then normal for declarer to play the dummy himself.

Law 40 gave the dealer the duty to decide which denomination should be trump or that the play should be without trump, and specified that he should for this purpose use the exact words: 'Spades', 'Hearts', Diamonds', 'Clubs' or 'No Trump'.

However Law 41 gave the Dealer the right to pass this duty to his partner by using the exact phrase: 'I leave it to you, partner'.

Next, Laws 46-51 specified precise procedures and exact language to be used for increasing scores on the board by (possibly repeated) doubling and redoubling.

 

The commentaries to the laws emphasize that the strict rules in Laws 40-51 on spoken language is to avoid illegal communication by varying the language used.

 

As Dummy did not in any way participate in the play (except possibly by assisting dealer on unambiguous requests) the laws appear silent on how dealer might in case address dummy.

[pescetom]

As Dummy did not in any way participate in the play (except possibly by assisting dealer on unambiguous requests) the laws appear silent on how dealer might in case address dummy.

As I imagined, thanks.

It would be interesting to know when Law 46 first appeared and whether it really did reflect (or determine) established practice at the time.

[pran]

As I imagined, thanks.

It would be interesting to know when Law 46 first appeared and whether it really did reflect (or determine) established practice at the time.

My law book from 1949 is silent in this respect.

 

The oldest reference i find in my library related to the current law 46 situation is in a (Norwegian) law book from 1976 where law 46 begins:

When requesting a card from dummy declarer should clearly name both denomination and rank.

 

Notice the use of word 'should' rather than 'shall' and the complete absence of mentioning 'correct procedure' or similar.

[pescetom]

My law book from 1949 is silent in this respect.

 

The oldest reference i find in my library related to the current law 46 situation is in a (Norwegian) law book from 1976 where law 46 begins:

When requesting a card from dummy declarer should clearly name both denomination and rank.

 

Notice the use of word 'should' rather than 'shall' and the complete absence of mentioning 'correct procedure' or similar.

Thanks again.

So it starts to look like a half-hearted committee proposal rather than some well working established practice.

I bet that back in 1904 they would have had the courage to say "shall".

[pran]

Thanks again.

So it starts to look like a half-hearted committee proposal rather than some well working established practice.

I bet that back in 1904 they would have had the courage to say "shall".

 

I don't think so.

Remember that bridge was a game for Gentlemen, and Gentlemen knew how to behave.

He wouldn't need any detailed description on how to name a particular card.

Instead he would probably feel annoyed if someone didn't just understand his plain, simple English?

[blackshoe]

Did that 1976 law book have anything in it like the current law book's discussion of the meaning of "should", "shall", etcetera? When did that discussion first appear?

[pescetom]

Pran said:

I don't think so.

Remember that bridge was a game for Gentlemen, and Gentlemen knew how to behave.

He wouldn't need any detailed description on how to name a particular card.

Instead he would probably feel annoyed if someone didn't just understand his plain, simple English?

 

But also mentioned that in 1907:

The commentaries to the laws emphasize that the strict rules in Laws 40-51 on spoken language is to avoid illegal communication by varying the language used.

 

From what I have read, it was quite common in the early 1900s to play bridge for considerable sums of money, often with and against professionals from poker and other card games. So no surprise that strict rules against illegal practices were considered necessary by the lawmakers.

 

But it's not just a question of strictness. The few sports/games that have managed to maintain Gentlemanly behaviour to this day (athletics, rugby, golf, chess...) have a limited number of rules (rugby has 21, even golf has only 34), probably no coincidence. Bridge had 93 at last count.

[sfi]

Football has only 17 laws, and I don't know too many people who accuse it of being a sport of gentlemen (or gentlewomen). Maybe the real answer is bridge is simply structurally more complex to regulate.

[jillybean]

Where in the world do they play gentleman's rugby?

 

I'm of course in NZ, rugby is our national game.

[pran]

Did that 1976 law book have anything in it like the current law book's discussion of the meaning of "should", "shall", etcetera? When did that discussion first appear?

Oh dear, you got me there.

I had to look it up and the answer is 1987!

[Vampyr]

In NA, "play a club", "a club" or simply "club" or "play" (following suit) is frequently used when designating a card from dummy.

 

When they say “play” all you have to do is, every time, ask which one. They will stop after one or two hands as declarer.

 

If it is the opponents who are being annoying, unfortunately i remember it being established that “play” does not mean “play anything” so opponents cannot specify. Perhaps when dummy puts the card into played position, you ask, “what card did you call for?”

[jillybean]

When they say “play” all you have to do is, every time, ask which one. They will stop after one or two hands as declarer.

 

If it is the opponents who are being annoying, unfortunately i remember it being established that “play” does not mean “play anything” so opponents cannot specify. Perhaps when dummy puts the card into played position, you ask, “what card did you call for?”

This doesn't actually bother me, 'play' meaning follow suit with lowest card is I think, quite acceptable and not open to abuse. There are many other deviations from the laws that should be focused on. "what card did you call for?" is exactly what my partner says when dummy reaches for a card before declarer has called for a card.

"well of course he is going to play low under the honor card" is the usual response and of course, when a decision has to be made, dummy doesn't reach for a card.

The worst offender I've seen here is the player who develops hearing loss when declarer calls for a suboptimal card, and clarifies "which card?" with hand hovering over the suit.

[blackshoe]

Oh dear, you got me there.

I had to look it up and the answer is 1987!

Thanks. I thought that might be the case. B-)

[blackshoe]

"Play" is fine, once you establish that people intend it to mean the same as "low". Unfortunately, the obvious meaning, to many people, without that understanding, is "play anything".

[pran]

"Play" is fine, once you establish that people intend it to mean the same as "low". Unfortunately, the obvious meaning, to many people, without that understanding, is "play anything".

Well, I would say that unless the condition 'except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible' applies we have

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.

[mycroft]

"17 rules". Current regulations, that's 100 pages, with smaller type than the Bridge Laws. If Law 1 was "the field of play" the way "Rule 1" is, it would encompass at least Laws 1-8. Law 17 is "the corner kick". That's equivalent to "The revoke", so that's L61-64, or "Claims", 68-71.

 

This is the same thing as "literary SF" with 6, 50-page chapters and more "action SF" with 50 6-page chapters. Obviously the 50-chapter book is longer and more complicated.

 

And anybody who compares bridge regulation with Golf - ha ha ha. The only game where the television broadcast has a "rule of the day" segment, because it's so easy for everyone to understand. (and I checked the Canadian Rules. Not only do they have a "player-friendly version" and an "official guide", the "34 rules" are *200* pages of very tight text (okay, maybe 180 pages. It also includes a bunch of advertisements for Rolex before the rules start, didn't check to see if there are interstitial ads).

[jillybean]

Well, I would say that unless the condition 'except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible' applies we have

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.

 

That would only apply when discarding or leading from dummy, not when playing to a trick in progress, when "play" or "top" etc are used.

[pran]

Well, I would say that unless the condition 'except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible' applies we have

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.

 

 

That would only apply when discarding or leading from dummy, not when playing to a trick in progress, when "play" or "top" etc are used.

Rubbish.

'Play' indicates any of the available cards in the appropriate suit so your comment is only relevant when Dummy has just one such available card.

 

(And in that case declarer's intention is definitely incontrovertible!)

[jillybean]

Rubbish.

'Play' indicates any of the available cards in the appropriate suit so your comment is only relevant when Dummy has just one such available card.

 

(And in that case declarer's intention is definitely incontrovertible!)

46

B. Incomplete or Invalid Designation

In the case of an incomplete or invalid designation, the following restrictions apply (except when

declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):

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

the suit indicated.

 

46 B.2 must apply when a suit had been led and declarer calls 'play'. The 'suit' is assumed by default, declarer cannot play any other suit.

 

5. 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.

 

46 B 5 applies when dummy cannot follow suit and declarer, as they do, directs dummy to "play anything" or "anything" ("play")

[pran]

46

B. Incomplete or Invalid Designation

In the case of an incomplete or invalid designation, the following restrictions apply (except when

declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):

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

the suit indicated.

 

46 B.2 must apply when a suit had been led and declarer calls 'play'. The 'suit' is assumed by default, declarer cannot play any other suit.

 

5. 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.

 

46 B 5 applies when dummy cannot follow suit and declarer, as they do, directs dummy to "play anything" or "anything" ("play")

Sure, and what is the point?

[sanst]

The Dutch Bridge Union has published a 40 page guide for players. It’s mostly about how to play and bid, and what to do when there’s an infraction. The role of the TD is explained and there are examples to illustrate the text. Quite useful, but too many have it unread in the bookcase. There’s also a movie, on Youtube, with all the common infractions - no revokes or use of UI - you see at the table. Actually I’ve lost count somewhere in the middle, but at least twenty in just one board. And I’m sure that many players don’t see anything wrong here. Unfortunately it’s in Dutch, unfortunately for those who don’t understand the language that is, because it’s quite funny.

There’s also a guide for TD’s with flow charts about the most common irregularities. Useful for those directors who don’t have followed the full course, and those are in the majority over here. Some don’t have any formal training at all.

[jillybean]

Sure, and what is the point?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saj54hq3dqj542ckq&n=s9632hk764d76c754&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

South is playing in 1nt, West leads a small heart, South says "Play"

Which card must dummy play?

[pran]

[hv=pc=n&s=saj54hq3dqj542ckq&n=s9632hk764d76c754&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

South is playing in 1nt, West leads a small heart, South says "Play"

Which card must dummy play?

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."

 

Either East or West may designate, but they may not confer,

and he must of course designate a card that can legally be played from dummy, i.e. (any) one of the hearts.

 

Again - what is the point?

[jillybean]

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."

 

Either East or West may designate, but they may not confer,

and he must of course designate a card that can legally be played from dummy, i.e. (any) one of the hearts.

 

Again - what is the point?

If this is this intent of the law, I have yet to see a Director enforce it.

I don't understand your question, what is the point? The point of the law or the point of declarer calling for a "suit", or "play" ?

[mycroft]

"play" does not mean "play anything" or "words of like meaning". If declarer had meant that, they would have said something like "pick one" (seeing the 987 on the board).

 

L46B2: "If declarer designates a suit but not a rank, the lowest card of the suit indicated is deemed to have been called".

 

Declarer has designated a suit by implication - L44C: "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." (my emphasis). Therefore, declarer has called for the ♥4.