[showle]

Still, from what I read above, it begs the question of what to do after a common auction like 1NT-3NT. Declarer again leads a small diamond towards dummy's void, and says 'trump it'. Now the card that declarer likely meant to play from dummy cannot be known.

[blackshoe]

The word "trump" is defined in chapter one of the laws as "Each card of the denomination named in a suit contract." This is not a suit contract, there are no "trump" so "trump it" is a call for a card not in dummy, and Law 46B4 applies. The suggestion that declarer may, in a particular situation, "obviously" have meant to play a particular card is not relevant. You're reading his mind, and in this case we are not to read his mind, we are to rule on what he did. No other interpretation makes sense to me.

More generally, any call for a card from dummy which does not conform to Law 46A is irregular. While dummy may attempt to prevent declarer's irregularities, once they have happened — and once he's called for a card in an irregular way, the irregularity has happened — dummy cannot say anything until after the play. So in these cases, whether there's an "obvious" not-really-trump suit or not, he should sit on his hands and keep his mouth shut until either his partner wakes up, or an opponent calls the director. Yeah, yeah, "anti-social", "waste of time", yada, yada, yada. Sorry folks, that's what the law says.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-16, 17:22, said:

The word "trump" is defined in chapter one of the laws as "Each card of the denomination named in a suit contract." This is not a suit contract, there are no "trump" so "trump it" is a call for a card not in dummy, and Law 46B4 applies. The suggestion that declarer may, in a particular situation, "obviously" have meant to play a particular card is not relevant. You're reading his mind, and in this case we are not to read his mind, we are to rule on what he did. No other interpretation makes sense to me.

I disagree. Law 46B4, like all the other sub-parts of Law 46B, only applies "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". So, yes, "obviously" is not enough, but did he "incontrovertibly" intend to play a particular card?

[blackshoe]

The fact that somebody bid spades during the auction does not mean that declarer incontrovertibly intended to play a spade. He didn't say what he thinks is trump, so the assertion that he thinks spades are trump is an assumption, not a fact.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-17, 07:47, said:

The fact that somebody bid spades during the auction does not mean that declarer incontrovertibly intended to play a spade. He didn't say what he thinks is trump, so the assertion that he thinks spades are trump is an assumption, not a fact.

Except in the cases Barry mentioned earlier, where declarer explicitly mentioned a spade or pointed to the relevant card.

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2015-July-17, 08:24, said:

Except in the cases Barry mentioned earlier, where declarer explicitly mentioned a spade or pointed to the relevant card.

Which is an entirely different situation.

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2015-July-17, 09:01, said:

Which is an entirely different situation.

Well yes, and I think we are all in agreement for both cases despite the "interesting" tangent.

[kevperk]

What if declarer says, after he corrects his play, says "Sorry I thought spades(or diamonds, etc.) were trump" ? What if he says it right after he is informed that the contract is notrump? If these are treated differently, then declarer should keep their mouth shut, verbalizing their intent is costly here.

[barmar]

Declarer can say whatever he wants, there's no partner to convey UI to. But if it's misleading it likely would be considered a violation of 73D2, and if the opponents are damaged as a result the TD could adjust based on 73F.

[Vampyr]

showle, on 2015-July-16, 12:16, said:

Still, from what I read above, it begs the question of what to do after a common auction like 1NT-3NT.

It raises the question, but anyway...

Zelandakh, on 2015-July-17, 08:24, said:

Except in the cases Barry mentioned earlier, where declarer explicitly mentioned a spade or pointed to the relevant card.

It does seem rather unfair that a declarer who uses the correct procedure in designating a card gets punished.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-17, 07:47, said:

The fact that somebody bid spades during the auction does not mean that declarer incontrovertibly intended to play a spade. He didn't say what he thinks is trump, so the assertion that he thinks spades are trump is an assumption, not a fact.

Well, we could just ask him what he thought trumps were. Then when he gives the answer he's obviously going to give, his intention will become incontrovertible.

[Zelandakh]

gnasher, on 2015-July-19, 00:38, said:

Well, we could just ask him what he thought trumps were. Then when he gives the answer he's obviously going to give, his intention will become incontrovertible.

By asking the question so directly, declarer will surely get woken up. That in turn would give an advantage to a dishonest player. More than that, I am not convinced there is any provision in the Laws for such a course of action.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2015-July-19, 00:38, said:

Well, we could just ask him what he thought trumps were. Then when he gives the answer he's obviously going to give, his intention will become incontrovertible.

An SB might reply that, under Law 20F, except under the instruction of the Director you have to ask dummy to explain the final call before the three passes which followed it, and he has no obligation to answer what he thought trumps are.

[kevperk]

barmar, on 2015-July-18, 11:13, said:

Declarer can say whatever he wants, there's no partner to convey UI to. But if it's misleading it likely would be considered a violation of 73D2, and if the opponents are damaged as a result the TD could adjust based on 73F.

I don't understand your reference to UI and misleading the opponents. My point is that if declarer says these things, it IS clear what card he was calling for in dummy.

[blackshoe]

He didn't call for a spade, he called for a trump. There aren't any trump. It doesn't matter what suit he thought was trumps, or how "obvious" that is to Monday morning quarterbacks.

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2015-July-19, 02:34, said:

By asking the question so directly, declarer will surely get woken up. That in turn would give an advantage to a dishonest player. More than that, I am not convinced there is any provision in the Laws for such a course of action.

lamford, on 2015-July-19, 03:46, said:

An SB might reply that, under Law 20F, except under the instruction of the Director you have to ask dummy to explain the final call before the three passes which followed it, and he has no obligation to answer what he thought trumps are.

I was talking about what a director should do, not what dummy should do.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2015-July-19, 15:44, said:

I was talking about what a director should do, not what dummy should do.

I was aware that you were suggesting that the opponent or the TD should ask the declarer what he thought trumps were (although I was unclear to whom the "we" referred). I agree with Zel that there is no provision for this in the Laws, and I don't think the opponents can ask the declarer any question other than the meaning of any of his partner's calls, which would not include the final contract. I think anyone can ask at any time what the contract is, but the declarer is not obliged to answer.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-July-19, 18:11, said:

I think anyone can ask at any time what the contract is, but the declarer is not obliged to answer.

Technically correct, but if the question is asked somebody must answer it — the asker (unless he's dummy) is entitled to know the answer.

[pran]

lamford, on 2015-July-19, 18:11, said:

I think anyone can ask at any time what the contract is, but the declarer is not obliged to answer.

blackshoe, on 2015-July-19, 19:16, said:

Technically correct, but if the question is asked somebody must answer it — the asker (unless he's dummy) is entitled to know the answer.

Law 41 C said:

[...]
After it is too late to have previous calls restated (see B), declarer or either defender, at his own*** turn to play, is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled.

Dummy may not ask, but anyone (including Dummy) is obliged to answer (as blackshoe also says)

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-19, 19:16, said:

Technically correct, but if the question is asked somebody must answer it — the asker (unless he's dummy) is entitled to know the answer.

So, if declarer says "what is the contract?", the opponents can keep quiet and then dummy has to answer? I note that 41C uses the passive "is entitled to be informed" without establishing who has the duty to inform him. If the opponents had that obligation, the Laws would say "is entitled to be informed by an opponent".

In response to gnasher, if the declarer is asked "what do you think the contract is?", he should reply, "Don't ask me, I came for the Scrabble tournament, but there was a 3/4 table."