[pran]

lamford, on 2014-January-22, 08:57, said:

There is no dispute that dummy has to play the ten of diamonds. I argue that declarer cannot benefit from the incomplete designation, and if the Laws allow him to, as Iviehoff argues, then it is automatic to apply Law 23. Not optional, but automatic.

In the other thread on here where "small" was chosen instead of naming the card, dburn was about the only person to talk sense, and Law 23 would have been the best way of dealing with that as well.

And there should be no dispute that East has revoked by playing his ♣A.

In this particular case where declarer names the rank of the card next to be led in the suit currently being run from dummy Law 46B3a makes the incompleteless of the call null and void. There is no room for any discussion on which card was actually called (and played).

(Actually, if declarer while running a suit from dummy suddenly calls "small" I would rule that he has called the smallest card still available in that suit except when this obviously was not his intention.)

[lamford]

pran, on 2014-January-22, 09:19, said:

In this particular case where declarer names the rank of the card next to be led in the suit currently being run from dummy Law 46B3a makes the incompleteless of the call null and void. There is no room for any discussion on which card was actually called (and played).

No, the designation is still incomplete, and Law 46A has still been breached. Law 46B3(a) indicates that declarer is deemed to lead the ten of diamonds. There is no dispute that East is allowed to change his card as the revoke is not established. The sole question is whether the ace of clubs is a MPC. If it is, then the fact that East has it is UI to West, and he will be required to duck the second round of diamonds (as that must be an LA). If the ace of clubs is an MPC, then declarer has gained from the breach of Law 46A, and we adjust under Law 23. I think this is the clearest way to deal with the infraction, as it is not necessary to establish intent. If declarer had said "small diamond" and East had played the ace of clubs, then there would be still be a breach of Law 46A but no Law 23 adjustment, and the contract would make, as South could not have been aware that East might play the ace of clubs on a small diamond.

[PeterAlan]

To be clear, Paul, you are positing a situation where

• declarer has made an incomplete designation ("ten") which Law 46B3(a) requires to be interpreted as ♦10
  
• a second or two later, dummy places ♦10 in the played position
  
• simultaneously E plays ♣A
  
• E states that (1) (s)he was unaware that ♦10 was in dummy, but (2) knew that ♣10 was in dummy, (3) had processed declarer's call for "ten" as an incomplete designation of ♣10 under Laws46B3(a)&(b), and (4) had played ♣A accordingly
  
• we may assume that ♦10 was clearly visible in dummy before being placed in the played position.

[lamford]

PeterAlan, on 2014-January-22, 09:28, said:

To be clear, Paul, you are positing a situation where

• declarer has made an incomplete designation ("ten") which Law 46B3(a) requires to be interpreted as ♦10
  
• a second or two later, dummy places ♦10 in the played position
  
• simultaneously E plays ♣A
  
• E states that (1) (s)he was unaware that ♦10 was in dummy, but (2) knew that ♣10 was in dummy, (3) had processed declarer's call for "ten" as an incomplete designation of ♣10 under Laws46B3(a)&(b), and (4) had played ♣A accordingly
  
• we may assume that ♦10 was clearly visible in dummy before being placed in the played position.

All I am positing is that declarer called "ten", breaching Law 46A. East, mistakenly thinking the ten of clubs was the only ten in dummy, followed with the ace of clubs. Declarer could have been aware that the infraction would gain. We don't need to establish anything else.

[blackshoe]

According to my reading of the OP, East played the ♣A out of tempo. There's your infraction by him.

Also, if East wants a ruling on the question of South's irregular call from dummy, he should call the director before he takes some other action, such as playing a card.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-22, 10:05, said:

According to my reading of the OP, East played the ♣A out of tempo. There's your infraction by him.

Also, if East wants a ruling on the question of South's irregular call from dummy, he should call the director before he takes some other action, such as playing a card.

No, East followed with his lowest spade on the opening lead, and the nine of diamonds on the first round, very quickly as well, so there was no change of tempo. Do you think he should be denied redress because he followed with the ace of clubs before noticing the ten of diamonds? Normally, a director call 1-2 seconds late is not denied redress.

For me this is a clear PP for South, as well as score stands (6NT-4). Why did South not call for a low diamond, rather than say "ten"? I gave this as a play problem to a few people, and none stated "ten" when answering - those that continued diamonds said "low diamond", so this was a purposeful deviation from correct procedure. There was therefore a breach of 74A3, 72B1 and 73D1. Only a few seconds earlier, South had specified "king of diamonds" when "king" would have been sufficient.

And I made a mistake in my presentation of the hand. SB was actually South. Does that change your ruling ...?

[barmar]

lamford, on 2014-January-22, 08:13, said:

I tend to agree. However, this will lead to SBs making the minimum legal designation hoping to induce an error from an opponent.

Since many (if not most, I suspect) players already make the minimum legal designation, how would this be different from current practice? How often does it actually succeed outside of your hypotheticals?

If there's a Law that players routinely ignore, making it harsher is not likely to improve things. You can't fight human nature.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-January-22, 10:36, said:

No, East followed with his lowest spade on the opening lead, and the nine of diamonds on the first round, very quickly as well, so there was no change of tempo. Do you think he should be denied redress because he followed with the ace of clubs before noticing the ten of diamonds? Normally, a director call 1-2 seconds late is not denied redress.

For me this is a clear PP for South, as well as score stands (6NT-4). Why did South not call for a low diamond, rather than say "ten"? I gave this as a play problem to a few people, and none stated "ten" when answering - those that continued diamonds said "low diamond", so this was a purposeful deviation from correct procedure. There was therefore a breach of 74A3, 72B1 and 73D1. Only a few seconds earlier, South had specified "king of diamonds" when "king" would have been sufficient.

And I made a mistake in my presentation of the hand. SB was actually South. Does that change your ruling ...?

Now you're adding information that wasn't in the original post. I suppose this is another of your hypothetical scenarios, so you feel justified in making it up as you go along, but I gave a ruling on the evidence presented, and on that basis I'll stick by that ruling. What you're proposing now is a different scenario, which may well call for a different ruling.

I don't buy the argument in your second paragraph ("purposeful deviation from correct procedure"), and I don't understand it in conjunction with your third paragraph, which I also don't understand. Perhaps you should start over and give us all the (correct) facts.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2014-January-22, 10:59, said:

Since many (if not most, I suspect) players already make the minimum legal designation, how would this be different from current practice? How often does it actually succeed outside of your hypotheticals?

If there's a Law that players routinely ignore, making it harsher is not likely to improve things. You can't fight human nature.

I am certainly not advocating making the Law harsher, and "tended to agree" that any legal designation should be permitted. Variation in terminology should be punished where an advantage is gained. Perhaps omitting the suit should always be an infraction, as it gives the defender unnecessary thinking to do, and annoys some people.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-22, 11:08, said:

Now you're adding information that wasn't in the original post. I suppose this is another of your hypothetical scenarios, so you feel justified in making it up as you go along, but I gave a ruling on the evidence presented, and on that basis I'll stick by that ruling. What you're proposing now is a different scenario, which may well call for a different ruling.

I don't buy the argument in your second paragraph ("purposeful deviation from correct procedure"), and I don't understand it in conjunction with your third paragraph, which I also don't understand. Perhaps you should start over and give us all the (correct) facts.

No, I am not adding any new facts nor changing any, other than the identity of South and East, which should make no difference as I am sure you would always rule without allowing the identity of any party to influence you. What information do you think I am adding? In what way am I proposing a different scenario? Because SB is South?

The facts are exactly as stated, except it is irrelevant which seat SB occupied, and I cannot remember which it was now. I changed his seat as I felt people were bending over backwards to try to rule against a bridge "lawyer". "Ten" was purposeful deviation from correct procedure whoever used it. Are you suggesting it was accidental?

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2014-January-22, 11:19, said:

I am certainly not advocating making the Law harsher, and "tended to agree" that any legal designation should be permitted. Variation in terminology should be punished where an advantage was gained. Perhaps omitting the suit should always be an infraction, as it gives the defender unnecessary thinking to do, and annoys some people.

You mean that dummy has to do some unnecessary thinking as she has to search around for the card. The defender needs only to follow suit.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-22, 11:30, said:

You mean that dummy has to do some unnecessary thinking as she has to search around for the card. The defender needs only to follow suit.

No, the defender also needs to establish that when the rank alone is given, the card selected by dummy is from the last suit played when dummy has more than one card of that rank. Some players at the Woodentops Bridge Club would not know which suit had been previously played even if the last trick had not yet been quitted, and the majority of directors there, let alone defenders, would not know the Law.

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2014-January-22, 08:00, said:

I agree that the card is played once it is named. But that is not the issue. The issue is the identification of what card has been played. East decided to make his own computation of what card had been played, which was completely unnecessary. If East had waited for dummy to pick a card up, he can rely on that being the card that is played, for if dummy picks up the wrong one East is protected by 45D. We certainly wouldn't have given East any relief if he said that he mis-saw what card dummy picked up (in full sight) or failed to look at it.

Well, under 45D: "If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick <snip>."

Did declarer name the ten of diamonds? No, he said "ten". He is deemed to play the ten of diamonds under 46B3a, but he is not deemed to have named the ten of diamonds. So, the correct procedure is that the ten of diamonds is withdrawn. East gets to withdraw the ace of clubs without penalty. Then the TD tells declarer to lead the ten of diamonds anyway under 46B3a and East plays any legal card. Exactly as the TD ruled. And it does not matter one iota if East mis-saw what card dummy picked up in full sight or failed to look at it.

[PeterAlan]

lamford, on 2014-January-22, 12:09, said:

Well, under 45D: "If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick <snip>."

Did declarer name the ten of diamonds? No, he said "ten". He is deemed to play the ten of diamonds under 46B3a, but he is not deemed to have named the ten of diamonds. So, the correct procedure is that the ten of diamonds is withdrawn.

You are carrying things too far to claim that declarer has not "named" the ♦10 for the purposes of the Laws. Law 46 - which covers complete designations as well as incomplete ones - is couched in terms of "calling" for a card rather than "naming" it, and it is clear that "call" here and "name" in Law 45 essentially refer to the same thing. I really do not think it is reasonable to contend that completion of the "call" of a card under the provisions of Law 46C3(a) does not constitute "naming" it for the purposes of Law 45, not least because otherwise a normal, complete "call" that fully complies with Law 46A could also fail your "name" test.

The Laws do not specify the "names" of cards (they specify in Law 1 labels for the suits and the ranks but, if I am going to be as picky as you, do not specify how these are combined to name a specific card). Is the name of the card in question the "10 of Diamonds"? The "Diamond 10"? Both? One but not the other? Something else as well? Is the next higher card the "Jack of Diamonds" but never the "Knave of Diamonds"?

Moreover, even if you contend that declarer has not satisfied the requirements of Law 45B, there is still Law 45C4(a) "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play" (my emphasis). To contend that neither of these Laws applies in these circumstances, but that instead Law 45D, which is clearly intended for a wholly different set of circumstances, kicks in is, in my view, to carry language-lawyering to a risible extreme, and one that the drafting precision of the Laws was never intended to accommodate or embrace. (I refer you to the fate of the narrator of Ian McEwan's "Solid Geometry".)

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-January-22, 11:23, said:

No, I am not adding any new facts nor changing any, other than the identity of South and East, which should make no difference as I am sure you would always rule without allowing the identity of any party to influence you. What information do you think I am adding? In what way am I proposing a different scenario? Because SB is South?

The facts are exactly as stated, except it is irrelevant which seat SB occupied, and I cannot remember which it was now. I changed his seat as I felt people were bending over backwards to try to rule against a bridge "lawyer". "Ten" was purposeful deviation from correct procedure whoever used it. Are you suggesting it was accidental?

I don't agree that the facts have not been changed. If the SB was South, and you swapped South and East, was East the declarer? If so, the ♦10 wasn't in dummy. Or are you saying that declarer's reaction to East's comment made him the SB?

I do not suggest that "ten" was an accidental deviation from correct procedure (although I'm sure there are people who think any of the designations in 46B is correct procedure). It was "purposeful" in the sense that it was intended to clearly identify the card declarer wanted to play, and not in the sense that it was intended to induce an error from East (or whoever it was), which is how I understand you meant it.

[lamford]

PeterAlan, on 2014-January-22, 15:16, said:

You are carrying things too far to claim that declarer has not "named" the ♦10 for the purposes of the Laws. Law 46 - which covers complete designations as well as incomplete ones - is couched in terms of "calling" for a card rather than "naming" it, and it is clear that "call" here and "name" in Law 45 essentially refer to the same thing. I really do not think it is reasonable to contend that completion of the "call" of a card under the provisions of Law 46C3(a) does not constitute "naming" it for the purposes of Law 45, not least because otherwise a normal, complete "call" that fully complies with Law 46A could also fail your "name" test.

The Laws do not specify the "names" of cards (they specify in Law 1 labels for the suits and the ranks but, if I am going to be as picky as you, do not specify how these are combined to name a specific card). Is the name of the card in question the "10 of Diamonds"? The "Diamond 10"? Both? One but not the other? Something else as well? Is the next higher card the "Jack of Diamonds" but never the "Knave of Diamonds"?

Moreover, even if you contend that declarer has not satisfied the requirements of Law 45B, there is still Law 45C4(a) "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play" (my emphasis). To contend that neither of these Laws applies in these circumstances, but that instead Law 45D, which is clearly intended for a wholly different set of circumstances, kicks in is, in my view, to carry language-lawyering to a risible extreme, and one that the drafting precision of the Laws was never intended to accommodate or embrace. (I refer you to the fate of the narrator of Ian McEwan's "Solid Geometry".)

So, you think that the use of the term "did not name" in 45D should say "did not call for", or include "did not otherwise designate". I would agree, but I do not think the ten of diamonds has been called for, named or otherwise designated. To argue that it has been because it must be played because the previous diamond was played from dummy is distorting the English Language too far.

I note that the word "ruff" does not appear anywhere in the Laws, not even in the definitions. There is, however, case law that the term requires dummy to play the lowest trump (obviously only in a trump contract), but neither Vampyr nor I could find any such requirement in the Laws! To use the term is still a breach of Law 46A, and dummy will inevitably play a card that declarer "did not name". It would indeed be chaos if every time declarer said "ruff", a pedantic opponent asked for the card dummy played to be withdrawn.

I can live with interpreting Law 45D such that one adds "or designates a card in such a way that it will need to be played". I still would rule in both this case, and in the "Small-Minded" thread, using Law 23. When any deviation from correct procedure could gain, the declarer is ruled against. I am NOT advocating letting East getting away with playing the ace of clubs if declarer had called for a "small" diamond.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-22, 15:45, said:

It was "purposeful" in the sense that it was intended to clearly identify the card declarer wanted to play, and not in the sense that it was intended to induce an error from East (or whoever it was), which is how I understand you meant it.

We rule against declarer if he could have known that a purposeful deviation from correct procedure might work to his advantage. We do not need to decide whether the call of "ten" was a purposeful deviation. And it is irrelevant which seat was occupied by SB, so there is no need to continue to discuss that. And I do not see any purpose in posting on this thread again, so will not do so.

[pran]

I (for one) don't care if East, South, both or neither is SB here. I found the behavious of the player who played the ♣A in the manner he did, and his "follow up" activities unethical and unacceptable, but as the cards lie I saw no reason for further action other than a warning to this player.

On reading the later posts in this thread I get the impression that the real SB here might be lamford?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-January-22, 16:05, said:

We rule against declarer if he could have known that a purposeful deviation from correct procedure might work to his advantage. We do not need to decide whether the call of "ten" was a purposeful deviation. And it is irrelevant which seat was occupied by SB, so there is no need to continue to discuss that. And I do not see any purpose in posting on this thread again, so will not do so.

I fail to see how anyone would expect that this very common deviation from correct procedure could work to his advantage. You might as well apply Law 23 willy-nilly to every deviation.

I remember reading that Edgar Kaplan used to say "decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to support it". It seems to me that's what Lamford is doing here. It also seems to me that the approach is deprecated.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-January-22, 16:05, said:

We rule against declarer if he could have known that a purposeful deviation from correct procedure might work to his advantage.

Could well work to his advantage. This scenario is so unlikely to occur in real life -- even in your original post it is not clear whether East was actually misled or just claimed to be -- that I don't think it is close to satisfying this requirement. People call for "ten" when they mean "the ten of the suit with which dummy won the previous trick" frequently. I can't remember whether I have ever heard someone call for a switch of suit by rank only, it certainly would be years ago if I have, and I think almost anyone would stop and check that was actually what had happened. Not, of course, that East has any business playing so quickly anyway; law 44B makes it clear that it is his turn once dummy has played a card, not merely when declarer has played a card from dummy.