"Run the hearts"

[pescetom]

"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.

 

Seems logical to me. But the fact that it doesn't occur to pran suggests the law is not well written.

[mycroft]

Well, when you're writing a "here's what you should do. We know nobody does, here's codification of what a large number of 'what is actually done' mean" law, it's hard to be well-written. Hence, interpretations and case law. Just like any other set of rules.

 

I am guessing that this one is a "native English speaker has a small advantage" situation (note, if my Norwegian (or my Spanish for that matter, to pick a language that matters to my daily life) gets as good as Pran's English, I get to criticize. This is not criticism).

 

The laws could be written better; definitely the laws commission's plan of action could be better. "Mandatory law review preferably every year, but definitely the year after the new edition comes out" would be a good start.

 

A reminder, of course, that all of L46B specifics are coloured by "In the case of an incomplete or invalid designation, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible):" And yeah, that's a minefield for regulation, too, and case law and interpretations.

[pran]

Seems logical to me. But the fact that it doesn't occur to pran suggests the law is not well written.

Oh, I have no problem with such allegations, and I might even agree with a few of them.

 

But I am also aware of the fact that our laws are the result of extensive and careful committee work involving all the major bridge organisations in the world during the ten or so years between revisions.

 

Now, if a declarer says 'play' in situations like the one under discussion here I understand that to express such indifference to the play that what he really says is: Play any (legal) card - I don't care.

 

And that is precisely how Law 46B5 tells us to handle such a statement. (If the play really doesn't matter then OK, otherwise I suggest a look into Law 74)

[axman]

"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.

It behooves rule makers that there are distinctions to be coped with: the situation is a lead, playing to the lead, and commands to dummy to participate in the play.

 

When following to a trick, 'play' can be construed in the vein of following suit (as Mycroft pointed out) but when leading, 'play' becomes a command for dummy to participate in the play; similarly, when dummy is void of the suit led, 'play' becomes a command for dummy to participate in the play.

 

It could be said it is unwise to conflate the distinctions.

 

My view is that it is not a good idea for declarer to command dummy to participate in the play due to the fact that being declarer's agent he must then do so:

An intentional breach of law which must have disciplinary consequences. My thinking is that the consequence be a penalty** trick from tricks subsequently won on the board.

 

**When a defender exercises his right to designate dummy's card doing so gives inferences to declarer that might be particularly useful. Hence it is better for a brutal penalty to stamp out commands to participate in the play altogether and not have to worry about penalties.

[blackshoe]

If I had my way, I would change "should" to "shall" in Law 46A, eliminate Law 46B, and issue a PP to any declarer who violates 46A. Most people here will now say it's a good thing I won't get my way here.

[pran]

If I had my way, I would change "should" to "shall" in Law 46A, eliminate Law 46B, and issue a PP to any declarer who violates 46A. Most people here will now say it's a good thing I won't get my way here.

Don't overlook that Law 46 reflects more than 100 years of traditional terminology. :P :unsure:

[mycroft]

I wouldn't say "good", necessarily. But I've mentioned your beloved utopia before.

 

It's not a good thing this will never happen. It may not be a bad thing either; the number of times this causes an issue even in theory, never mind at the table, is negligible, and there are much more dangerous things to worry about (even more dangerous things to worry about in what the Laws "allow" or "might mean if you read it oddly, but not incorrectly".)

 

And I'm not slamming your utopia, either - I have my own windmills I tilt at (some of which are even agreed to by people who *could* make a difference, but don't seem to think they need to put their clout behind it directly). This just isn't one of mine, because I don't see where it would improve things enough for me to saddle up.

[pescetom]

I wouldn't say "good", necessarily. But I've mentioned your beloved utopia before.

 

It's not a good thing this will never happen. It may not be a bad thing either; the number of times this causes an issue even in theory, never mind at the table, is negligible, and there are much more dangerous things to worry about (even more dangerous things to worry about in what the Laws "allow" or "might mean if you read it oddly, but not incorrectly".)

 

And I'm not slamming your utopia, either - I have my own windmills I tilt at (some of which are even agreed to by people who *could* make a difference, but don't seem to think they need to put their clout behind it directly). This just isn't one of mine, because I don't see where it would improve things enough for me to saddle up.

 

I would certainly prefer that utopia to the present innocuous mess, although I agree with you that it is neither a particularly good solution nor anywhere near the top of my list of law problems.

I don't agree that the problem is in readers who lack native English: the law ignores the obvious contextual framework suggested by axman and was clearly never reviewed by anyone asking simple basic questions like jillybean does.

[Vampyr]

"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".

 

Yes, fine, except for super annoying. I would quit the game if I had to contend with this. And I do not understand why it does not mean play anything.

[blackshoe]

Oh, that's one's easy, Vampyr. It doesn't mean "play anything" because when the director is called, the declarer insists she doesn't mean "play anything", she means "play low". One might point out to the director that this insistence doesn't make the declarer's different (to "play anything" intent incontrovertible, but the director will sigh happily, glad he has an excuse not to annoy declarer with an adverse ruling, and there you go. The fact that the defenders will be annoyed by the director's ruling somehow never crosses the director's mind.

[mycroft]

I am willing to be convinced that my logic is incorrect. However, I notice that nobody's yet bothered to try, they've just ignored it in favour of their own beliefs.

 

The ones where "play anything" in a pitch situation means "well, obviously not the ♥Q, I meant some low card", I'm happy to get the TD over to adjudicate. But when following suit, not mentioning a rank means "low" - the Law says so (para 1 caveat applies).

[pran]

I am willing to be convinced that my logic is incorrect. However, I notice that nobody's yet bothered to try, they've just ignored it in favour of their own beliefs.

 

The ones where "play anything" in a pitch situation means "well, obviously not the ♥Q, I meant some low card", I'm happy to get the TD over to adjudicate. But when following suit, not mentioning a rank means "low" - the Law says so (para 1 caveat applies).

I have a big problem with people arguing like this and strongly resent the accusation that I do argue in favour of my own belief.

I argue in my capacity as a licensed Director qualified in 1980 and with the true belief that the World Bridge Federation indeed acts in the best interests of this game of Bridge that we all love.

 

So please do the rest of us a favour and state why (if so) you find the the current Law 46 replacing the corresponding laws in 1949 (see below) unfortunate.

Alternatively feel free to state your own suggested version of Law 46 in your own words with your own logic clearly understandable.

 

The laws from 1949 said:

 

50. A card in any hand is played when named as the one a player proposes to play; but a player may change his designation if he does so practically in the same breath. or if he designates a card which is not there.

 

51. A card in any unfaced hand is played when it touches the table face upwards after being detached from the remaining cards with apparent intent to play; a defender's card so detached is also played as soon as his partner sees its face.

 

52. Unless touched for a purpose other than play either manifest or mentioned, a card in dummy is played when touched by declarer and a card in any other faced hand is played when touched by its owner.

[mycroft]

I did not say that you argue in favour of your own belief, nor would I say doing that is a problem. I argue for my own belief all the time, either because I think I'm right or because I need to understand why I'm wrong. In fact, that's how I learned why "run the hearts", despite being a "statement that [declarer] will win [tricks] other than the one in progress" isn't a claim.

 

What I said was "I made an argument that here, 'play' means the same as 'heart' - i.e. 'play low'. Instead of addressing that argument, you (and others) just begged the question to say 'defenders can call for the K'."

 

Re: your question about the laws: I don't find it unfortunate in the slightest. I much prefer the current Laws. I note that none of those three refer to what's being discussed in L46, either, but are the equivalent of L45C - so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up in this context. Why you're bringing it up in the original context of this thread, re: "run the hearts", that I can see.

 

But finally, I notice you still are ignoring my argument that "play" in the context of following suit is a L46B2, rather than a L46B5, situation.

[pran]

I did not say that you argue in favour of your own belief, nor would I say doing that is a problem. I argue for my own belief all the time, either because I think I'm right or because I need to understand why I'm wrong. In fact, that's how I learned why "run the hearts", despite being a "statement that [declarer] will win [tricks] other than the one in progress" isn't a claim.

 

What I said was "I made an argument that here, 'play' means the same as 'heart' - i.e. 'play low'. Instead of addressing that argument, you (and others) just begged the question to say 'defenders can call for the K'."

 

Re: your question about the laws: I don't find it unfortunate in the slightest. I much prefer the current Laws. I note that none of those three refer to what's being discussed in L46, either, but are the equivalent of L45C - so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up in this context. Why you're bringing it up in the original context of this thread, re: "run the hearts", that I can see.

 

But finally, I notice you still are ignoring my argument that "play" in the context of following suit is a L46B2, rather than a L46B5, situation.

The word 'play' (alone) does never automatically satisfy the conditions for applying law 46B2 rather than 46B5 (for instance when following suit without specifying rank or if only one denomination is available in dummy).

 

I shall, however, in most such situations accept that declarer intended to request the lowest ranked available card from dummy when only one denomination was available.

 

Still, such careless use of legal terms exposes an indifference to the laws which itself can only be considered a violation of Law 74.

[mycroft]

I can accept that, although I think that when following suit, the Laws enforce as the player's ultimate duty which suit is to be played. The player need not state it - he can do nothing else. As I said, that to me makes it a 46B2 situation, in the same way that "low" would uniquely define a card (to us all, the same card as "heart", and to me, the same card as "play") But "low" is dealt with in L46B1c, so the case is definitely open.

 

I do believe that "declarer's [] intention is incontrovertible" when he uses "play" when following suit, and would never have thought about it before this discussion.(*)

 

Given that the entirety of L46B is "we realize nobody has ever followed L46A, and the chance we can get them to do this (frankly, the chance we can get *us* to do this) ranks right up there with Boris rejoining the EU, so here's what the 'standard cheats' mean", I don't think that penalizing players for hitting an "unclear exception" is going to work.

 

This is definitely something we should get an official interpretation on. Now if only there was a way to get an RAs official interpretation on laws issues...

 

* Note: this is what I was getting at when mentioning "native English speaker". It is only because I play and direct all my bridge in English that I would make that association. In Norwegian, perhaps the terms used are different, and so you wouldn't automatically make that association; and it would be perfectly reasonable not to do so.

[pran]

.........

This is definitely something we should get an official interpretation on. Now if only there was a way to get an RAs official interpretation on laws issues..

.......

We already have. You just have to look at the right place:

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):

............

[pescetom]

Given that the entirety of L46B is "we realize nobody has ever followed L46A, and the chance we can get them to do this (frankly, the chance we can get *us* to do this) ranks right up there with Boris rejoining the EU, so here's what the 'standard cheats' mean", I don't think that penalizing players for hitting an "unclear exception" is going to work.

ROTFL (because of the amusing writing and obvious truth, not because happy about either situation).

[blackshoe]

I do believe that "declarer's [] intention is incontrovertible" when he uses "play" when following suit, and would never have thought about it before this discussion.(*)

The fact that declarer is playing from dummy to a trick to which dummy is not leading does not imply that dummy's intention is to follow suit. Consider the revoke. Also consider the fact that the oft-cited "dummy can't revoke" is nonsense.

[mycroft]

That is absolutely a valid argument (except you mean "declarer's intention", I think. Dummy's intention is to "shut up and dummy" :-).

 

However, it implies that declarer's intent could be violating their obligation that "takes precedence over all other requirements in the Laws". And it is possible. But I don't think it overcomes "incontrovertible", because frankly, if that was their intent, they deserve what they get by not naming the card and being told "you have to follow suit" (by any of the players at the table, or the director if you want to be absolutely to Law. Note this is another situation where you and one other are the only ones who would do that, and "I'm not sure about thee").

 

I think if you find the person whose intent was to revoke by saying "play", ever (save on purpose having read this conversation), then you deserve the beer you're going to need after the chaos ends.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps I should have said "declarer's intention for dummy".

[Douglas43]

I so rarely see this, it is by far the norm to use abbreviations, or even a nod of the head.

I am not suggesting "experienced" is good or within the laws, but it is the approach most experienced players take.

 

IMO one sign of an experienced dummy is you make declarer tell you what card he wants before you play it.

[pran]

IMO one sign of an experienced dummy is you make declarer tell you what card he wants before you play it.

Creating superfluous noise at the table ? :angry:

(Unless, of course, when you are sincere unsure of which card he indicates)