[blackshoe]

The current Law 46A says "When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card." A recent thread in "Laws and Rulings" suggests that this law is flawed and should be deleted from the book. The hypothetical scenario in that thread revolves around the use of "should" in the law, implying that failure to follow it is an infraction which might be penalized in some cases. Some folks don't like this, because "nobody" follows Law 46A, "everybody" uses the technically illegal constructs in Law 46B. Fair enough, but should we drop 46A altogether? Here are two alternative constructs:

1. When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer clearly states both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

2. When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer may clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

The first construct establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violations be penalized. In the second, failure to do it is not wrong. The latter might require some rewording of Law 46B, or might not.

Comments?

[chrism]

Maybe something like:

Law 46 – Incomplete or Erroneous Call of a Card from Dummy
A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card
When calling a card from dummy, declarer unambiguously designates the card to be played. The complete form is to state both the suit and the rank of the card to be played.

B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call
In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following interpretations apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):
...

[RunemPard]

Why not just add a 100% meaning to the use of small or high in the laws. (If not already there)...

If a player calls for a small/high in the suit, the lowest/highest card of the suit MUST be played.

This seems fair and simple to me, and it is how anyone other than SB understands it.


As for calling for a suit only...for simplicity this should be the lowest rank. I think it is bogus that players will call directors to gain an advantage. I will often say to my partner..."diamond please" when declaring. I have never had anyone call a director on me...but I can say if I got ruled against for this, I would never speak to the opponents again.

I am not a rule expert, but from my understanding if I call for a suit, the opps have the right to pick the card? Why? To make the game unfriendly with needless rules that encourage (I can't think of the right word)?

[blackshoe]

 RunemPard, on 2013-November-25, 16:11, said:

Why not just add a 100% meaning to the use of small or high in the laws. (If not already there)...

If a player calls for a small/high in the suit, the lowest/highest card of the suit MUST be played.

This seems fair and simple to me, and it is how anyone other than SB understands it.


As for calling for a suit only...for simplicity this should be the lowest rank. I think it is bogus that players will call directors to gain an advantage. I will often say to my partner..."diamond please" when declaring. I have never had anyone call a director on me...but I can say if I got ruled against for this, I would never speak to the opponents again.

I am not a rule expert, but from my understanding if I call for a suit, the opps have the right to pick the card? Why? To make the game unfriendly with needless rules that encourage (I can't think of the right word)?

Quote

Law 45C4:
....[a] A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play.
....{b} Until his partner has played a card, a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. If an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his hand, and substitute another (see Laws 47D and 16D1).

Quote

Law 46B:
In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply, except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible:
1. [a] If declarer in playing from dummy calls “high”, or words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the highest card.
....[b] If he directs dummy to “win” the trick he is deemed to have called the lowest card that it is known will win the trick.
....[c] If he calls “low”, or words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the lowest card.
2. If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated.
3. If declarer designates a rank but not a suit
....[a] In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick, provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit.
....[b] In all other cases declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so. If there are two or more such cards that can be legally played, declarer must designate which is intended.
4. If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card.
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.

So if declarer calls for "small" the smallest card must be played, etc. IOW, your suggestion is already part of the law. Also, your understanding of what happens when you call for a suit is flawed. I believe it is based on old law, probably from rubber bridge, but IAC it's not the case now in either rubber or duplicate.

[RunemPard]

 blackshoe, on 2013-November-25, 17:01, said:

So if declarer calls for "small" the smallest card must be played, etc. IOW, your suggestion is already part of the law. Also, your understanding of what happens when you call for a suit is flawed. I believe it is based on old law, probably from rubber bridge, but IAC it's not the case now in either rubber or duplicate.

Thank you.

[Vampyr]

 RunemPard, on 2013-November-25, 16:11, said:

Why not just add a 100% meaning to the use of small or high in the laws. (If not already there)...

If a player calls for a small/high in the suit, the lowest/highest card of the suit MUST be played.

This seems fair and simple to me, and it is how anyone other than SB understands it.

This is clearly correct.

Quote

I am not a rule expert, but from my understanding if I call for a suit, the opps have the right to pick the card? Why? To make the game unfriendly with needless rules that encourage (I can't think of the right word)?

This is only if the declarer asks for "anything".

EDIT: Sorry for redundancy; didn't refresh window before posting.

[WellSpyder]

 chrism, on 2013-November-25, 12:37, said:

Maybe something like:

Law 46 – Incomplete or Erroneous Call of a Card from Dummy
A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card
When calling a card from dummy, declarer unambiguously designates the card to be played. The complete form is to state both the suit and the rank of the card to be played.

B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call
In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following interpretations apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):
...

Seems spot on to me. Is there a realistic chance this law change could actually happen?

[blackshoe]

 WellSpyder, on 2013-November-26, 03:33, said:

Seems spot on to me. Is there a realistic chance this law change could actually happen?

Not if the only place the suggestion appears is in this forum. What I mean is that the WBFLC has to be made aware of it somehow before the next revision is made. I suppose someone could write to Grattan Endicott with it. Last go-round he had an email address specifically set up for such things, IIRC, but I don't remember what it was and I have no idea if it's still valid. I suppose blml (the bridge laws mailing list) is another possibility.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2013-November-26, 07:51, said:

Not if the only place the suggestion appears is in this forum. What I mean is that the WBFLC has to be made aware of it somehow before the next revision is made. I suppose someone could write to Grattan Endicott with it. Last go-round he had an email address specifically set up for such things, IIRC, but I don't remember what it was and I have no idea if it's still valid. I suppose blml (the bridge laws mailing list) is another possibility.

It was open for submissions until end of 2012.

The proper route now is trough your national bridge organisation's Laws & Regulations department.

[iviehoff]

 chrism, on 2013-November-25, 12:37, said:

Maybe something like:

Law 46 – Incomplete or Erroneous Call of a Card from Dummy
A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card
When calling a card from dummy, declarer unambiguously designates the card to be played. The complete form is to state both the suit and the rank of the card to be played.

B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call
In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following interpretations apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):
...

This does not achieve the point that has been made in the other thread, which is that it should not be irregular to use terms like "small" and "top", etc. when their meaning is unambiguous. We do not want only the stuck-up and pompous suit and rank designation to be regular designation, we want perfectly clear normal designations that normal ethical players routinely use to be regular designations too. So what we need is something that says that the words "small" and "top" and other unambiguous words are acceptable ways of designating rank in situations where their meaning is unambiguous. Further that it is an acceptable designation to omit the suit when following suit, provided dummy has a card to follow. "Ruff" and "trump" are acceptable ways of designating the trump suit provided dummy has one and is void in the suit led (or in fact trumps were led). "Play" and "follow" are acceptable ways of designating a singleton to be played when following suit.

We should really only be saying something is an incomplete designation when it really is ambiguous, and needs to have an official interpretation imposed upon it. We could make "follow" or "play" a synonym for "small" when there is more than one card in the suit, but I think really it is ambiguous and ought to be taken as incomplete and given that interpretion.

[axman]

 blackshoe, on 2013-November-26, 07:51, said:

Not if the only place the suggestion appears is in this forum. What I mean is that the WBFLC has to be made aware of it somehow before the next revision is made. I suppose someone could write to Grattan Endicott with it. Last go-round he had an email address specifically set up for such things, IIRC, but I don't remember what it was and I have no idea if it's still valid. I suppose blml (the bridge laws mailing list) is another possibility.

It is my understanding that Endicott has curtailed his WBF activities and that Kelso has been named Secretary.

In regard of the suggestion- it indicates a lack of awareness as to the length of the affected tentacles.

[nige1]

 iviehoff, on 2013-November-26, 08:57, said:

... We do not want only the stuck-up and pompous suit and rank designation to be regular designation, we want perfectly clear normal designations that normal ethical players routinely use to be regular designations too. So what we need is something that says that the words "small" and "top" and other unambiguous words are acceptable ways of designating rank in situations where their meaning is unambiguous. Further that it is an acceptable designation to omit the suit when following suit, provided dummy has a card to follow. "Ruff" and "trump" are acceptable ways of designating the trump suit provided dummy has one and is void in the suit led (or in fact trumps were led). "Play" and "follow" are acceptable ways of designating a singleton to be played when following suit. We should really only be saying something is an incomplete designation when it really is ambiguous, and needs to have an official interpretation imposed upon it. We could make "follow" or "play" a synonym for "small" when there is more than one card in the suit, but I think really it is ambiguous and ought to be taken as incomplete and given that interpretion.

IMO...

• The law should be simple. The current law on card-designation is fairly simple to understand, comply with, and enforce. Although, perhaps it needs some education of directors and players. Roughly speaking: a player can use various illegal designations, at his own risk. if that creates a problem, however, then the director should resolve doubtful cases in favour of opponents.
• If the law explicitly encouraged variants it would be more complex, harder to understand and spawn more disputed rulings. It would encourage further idiosyncrasy. In another thread Pran says he hasn't encountered real life problems but AFAIR there are many controversial rulings that hinge on the interpretation of some illegal designation (e.g. "spade" when declarer intends to run dummy's long spade suit from the top).
• The law shouldn't even bother interpreting illegal designations. It should just insist on <suit> <rank> (unless declarer is handicapped in some way). This would save time and unnecessary hassle.
• In other contexts some player's irritating foibles would mar "pompous stuck-up" players' enjoyment of the game less often if the rules were strictly followed. For example rules about alerts; stop-cards; picking up bidding-cards before the opening lead has been made (or. even worse, before the auction is over).

[pran]

If anybody ever has experienced penalty or adjusted score as the result of using terms like "small", "high", "low", "top" or other words with similar effect then please come forward with information.

If (as I expect) nobody can show any such case then I really do not understand the ongoing discussions on Law 46, not in this forum nor in "Laws and Regulations".

[mycroft]

No, but several have received a "forced play" of "diamond" when "of course they meant cover" at least from me.

Quote

1. IN DETERMINING "INADVERTENT," THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE
DECLARER. THE STANDARD OF PROOF IS "OVERWHELMING." Unless there is
such proof to the contrary, the director should assume that the card
called was the intended one.

Also:

Quote

To be deemed inadvertent,
a called card from dummy must be solely the result of a slip of the
tongue and not a momentary mental lapse

(both from the ACBL tech files - which I do realize don't apply outside the ACBL, but that's where I rule).

It is very clear that going from "not thinking" to "thinking" is a "momentary mental lapse". So goes the "queen - no, Ace" rulings as well, even when it was "in the same breath". Eventually, people are going to realize the 197x Law book no longer applies.

[barmar]

Perhaps something like this:

When calling a card from dummy, declarer ideally states both the suit and rank of the desired card. However, he may also use an abbreviated designation, with meanings as described in 46B, so long as it is unambiguous. Regulating Authorities may augment or restrict the abbreviated designations.

[RMB1]

I don't mind top/small/win and suit without rank but I think the laws should not permit "any".

Allowing (or requiring) the defenders to choose the card to be played takes far longer than declarer specifying a suit or rank; and sometimes declarer means "any but ..." and more time is wasted if the defenders choose a card declarer meant not to play.

I would prefer that "any" be an irregularity and declarer has to substitute a permitted designation of a card to be played.

[axman]

 RMB1, on 2013-November-26, 12:50, said:

I don't mind top/small/win and suit without rank but I think the laws should not permit "any".

Allowing (or requiring) the defenders to choose the card to be played takes far longer than declarer specifying a suit or rank; and sometimes declarer means "any but ..." and more time is wasted if the defenders choose a card declarer meant not to play.

I would prefer that "any" be an irregularity and declarer has to substitute a permitted designation of a card to be played.

There is more to it.

Inferences can be powerful stuff. I am reminded of the Crawford hand where the grand rested upon a first round hook in his solid suit. Crawford took inference from the fact that the kibitzers were anxious to see what would happen on the last hand of the day- he reasoned that the eight bagger wasn’t solid and took the hook.

Notably, when declarer says, ‘anything’ it is a command telling dummy to collaborate in declaring the hand.

The remedy for ‘anything’ is for the defender to have his choice. However ‘his choice’ comes with a heavy cost- it gives declarer inferences that might unlock tricks he otherwise was destined to lose. Thus the remedy is severely flawed and a better one is needed. As in declarer is motivated to not infract in the first place. And such motivation necessarily must be the certainty of severe pain.

[iviehoff]

 pran, on 2013-November-26, 10:15, said:

If anybody ever has experienced penalty or adjusted score as the result of using terms like "small", "high", "low", "top" or other words with similar effect then please come forward with information.

Lamford tried very hard to come up with an example where he has a case that someone ought to be penalised for it in a current thread. To me, the best way to curtail such nonsense is to ensure that saying "small" is fine when it is unambiguous. The present law in effect achieves that, apart from the annoying bit of making it an irregularity so Secretary Birds can seek to blame their poor score on it.

[iviehoff]

 axman, on 2013-November-26, 14:33, said:

The remedy for ‘anything’ is for the defender to have his choice. However ‘his choice’ comes with a heavy cost- it gives declarer inferences that might unlock tricks he otherwise was destined to lose. Thus the remedy is severely flawed and a better one is needed. As in declarer is motivated to not infract in the first place. And such motivation necessarily must be the certainty of severe pain.

L 23 suffices to remedy such a rare case when declarer can take take advantage of seeing what teh defenders choose when he says "any".

[iviehoff]

 nige1, on 2013-November-26, 09:50, said:

IMO...

• The law should be simple. The current law on card-designation is fairly simple to understand, comply with, and enforce. Although, perhaps it needs some education of directors and players. Roughly speaking: a player can use various illegal designations, at his own risk. if that creates a problem, however, then the director should resolve doubtful cases in favour of opponents.
• If the law explicitly encouraged variants it would be more complex, harder to understand and spawn more disputed rulings. It would encourage further idiosyncrasy. In another thread Pran says he hasn't encountered real life problems but AFAIR there are many controversial rulings that hinge on the interpretation of some illegal designation (e.g. "spade" when declarer intends to run dummy's long spade suit from the top.

You are swimming against the tide, Nige, to try and make calling "small" sufficiently illegal that it becomes rare, and it is quite pointless to attempt to do so because it isn't ambiguous. It strikes me as no more complicated than the current law to specify meanings that the law already goes to the trouble of interpreting, but making them regular rather than irregular. But only unambiguous terminology is to be regular, ambigious stuff is to remain irregular.