[barmar]

campboy, on 2013-November-29, 18:08, said:

We certainly have to apply 46B1b. Ok, now what? Once you apply 46B1b, declarer is deemed to have called for the lowest card which is known to win the trick. No such card exists. So it makes sense to say that 46B4 now applies. We are not applying it instead of 46B1b, though, but as well as (and subsequently to) 46B1b.

After all, what would you rule if declarer said "play the lowest card which is known to win the trick"? I would rule that 46B4 applies. And 46B1b tells us we should treat this designation the same as "win it".

This is exactly why I suggested that "win" should probably only be allowed when dummy is fourth to play to the trick, then the lowest card that is known to win the trick is clear (assuming dummy has such a card).

In some other position, dummy would have to be keeping track of previous cards playedxv, or always play his highest legal card (although it might not be known to win the trick, it's the best attempt he can make).

[Vampyr]

Wish I could upvote the previous post.

[pran]

campboy, on 2013-November-29, 18:08, said:

We certainly have to apply 46B1b. Ok, now what? Once you apply 46B1b, declarer is deemed to have called for the lowest card which is known to win the trick. No such card exists. So it makes sense to say that 46B4 now applies. We are not applying it instead of 46B1b, though, but as well as (and subsequently to) 46B1b.

After all, what would you rule if declarer said "play the lowest card which is known to win the trick"? I would rule that 46B4 applies. And 46B1b tells us we should treat this designation the same as "win it".

It is clear that Law 46B1b is unfortunate as it now stands because of the words "is known to win the trick".

Dummy may not participate in the play and is not supposed to know anything about the cards held by the other three players. An observant dummy may of course gain some knowledge from the auction and play as it progresses, but this knowledge must not in any way be conveyed by dummy to declarer during the play.

So when dummy is asked to win the trick he must play according to the cards already played to that trick and not use any knowledge he might have about cards possibly held by the other players.

Law 46B4 is only relevant when dummy has no card that can possibly win the trick in progress.

[blackshoe]

The wording of the law may be unfortunate, but that matters not. As dburn says "we hang for what they wrote".

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Again.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-30, 08:39, said:

The wording of the law may be unfortunate, but that matters not. As dburn says "we hang for what they wrote".

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Again.

This is the "Changin Laws" forum, aren't we discussing what they should say rather than what they currently say?

[blackshoe]

Well, I started this thread for that discussion, but Sven seems to want to discuss how we should read the law as it is.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-30, 21:56, said:

Well, I started this thread for that discussion, but Sven seems to want to discuss how we should read the law as it is.

We have a saying in engineering: Don't fix it if it aint broke!

Has anybody produced any evidence of L46A being "broke"? I have never experienced any such indication.

We agree that the words "known to win the trick" appears unfortunate, but if we concentrate on what is legal "knowledge" for dummy I think we have the right understanding. Dummy is not allowed to act as a reminder for declarer on what cards RHO might posess.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-December-01, 05:35, said:

Has anybody produced any evidence of L46A being "broke"? I have never experienced any such indication.

A thread was recently started about a situation where a player could be penalised for calling for a "small" card, since this designation is considered an irregularity.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-December-01, 06:15, said:

A thread was recently started about a situation where a player could be penalised for calling for a "small" card, since this designation is considered an irregularity.

Yes. We have at least one - hypothetical, to be sure - Secretary Bird who has sought to take advantage of this situation. So the purpose of this thread was to explore whether we need to change something to prevent the SBs from doing that. Sven apparently thinks not.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-December-01, 08:28, said:

Yes. We have at least one - hypothetical, to be sure - Secretary Bird who has sought to take advantage of this situation. So the purpose of this thread was to explore whether we need to change something to prevent the SBs from doing that. Sven apparently thinks not.

But if we can only find problems by constructing hypotheticals, is it really a problem?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-December-02, 19:39, said:

But if we can only find problems by constructing hypotheticals, is it really a problem?

Obviously. Why shouldn't a similar incident occur in real life? And who knows, maybe it has.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-December-02, 20:06, said:

Obviously. Why shouldn't a similar incident occur in real life? And who knows, maybe it has.

I am sure a similar incident has occured, and they moved on to the next board.

[pran]

barmar, on 2013-December-02, 19:39, said:

But if we can only find problems by constructing hypotheticals, is it really a problem?

Vampyr, on 2013-December-02, 20:06, said:

Obviously. Why shouldn't a similar incident occur in real life? And who knows, maybe it has.

aguahombre, on 2013-December-02, 21:22, said:

I am sure a similar incident has occured, and they moved on to the next board.

If so then - was that incident a problem?

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-December-03, 02:28, said:

If so then - was that incident a problem?

I should imagine it was. Obviously there is a difference of opinion on what the ruling should be, so there is a fair chance that one side or the other was unhappy about it.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2013-December-03, 04:48, said:

I should imagine it was. Obviously there is a difference of opinion on what the ruling should be, so there is a fair chance that one side or the other was unhappy about it.

Come on. Nobody bothered to call the director (or notify anybody) and you still claim there must have been a problem?

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-December-03, 06:21, said:

Come on. Nobody bothered to call the director (or notify anybody) and you still claim there must have been a problem?

I say they called the director.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2013-December-03, 06:28, said:

I say they called the director.

Oh, did they?

Vampyr, on 2013-December-02, 20:06, said:

Obviously. Why shouldn't a similar incident occur in real life? And who knows, maybe it has.

aguahombre, on 2013-December-02, 21:22, said:

I am sure a similar incident has occured, and they moved on to the next board.

and that was all.

Are you inventing things?

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-December-03, 08:07, said:

Are you inventing things?

Of course -- it is an imaginary situation.

[nige1]

pran, on 2013-December-01, 05:35, said:

We have a saying in engineering: Don't fix it if it aint broke! Has anybody produced any evidence of L46A being "broke"? I have never experienced any such indication.

Some players are reluctant to call the director about an infraction -- especially in club games -- especially when they are visitors to the club -- especially when damage is moot -- and especially when the irregularity involves a subtle and contentious point of law. Unclear, sophisticated and complex laws foster that attitude, partly because rulings are so inconsistent.

There are swings and roundabouts to the law-makers laissez faire policy:

On the one hand: the director is left in peace; most of the time players enjoy a smooth social game.

On the other hand: dubious practices become habitual; players complain behind each others' backs; the game comes to bear an increasingly tenuous resemblance to Bridge; when an exasperated player eventually calls the director, the law-breaker may resent it as tantamount to an accusation of cheating.

At a higher level, players are unlikely to respect laws that not even top directors can understand, especially if some of the latter claim that the law must mean something different from what it seems to say..

Bridge is a great game. Its popularity implies that its rules must be pretty good. Nevertheless, simpler clearer rules, rigorously enforced, would make the game more fun, and decelerate its decline.

[campboy]

Currently the laws make calling for "small" an irregularity. But virtually everyone does it all the time. In what sense is this not a problem? Now it is true that the issue could be (and is) dealt with by everyone pretending the law says something different, but this "solution" just seems inferior to changing the law to actually say what everyone acts as though it already says.