[pran]

axman, on 2017-February-27, 16:57, said:

It has occurred to me that declarer may well give the instruction 'win' while dummy has cards in the suit led- none of which are higher than those already contributed; and it seems to me that given L46 that instruction compels dummy to contribute a trump.

And revoke?

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2017-February-27, 18:07, said:

If dummy is second or third to play then you should play the lowest card that is "known" by you to win the trick.

I don't see that it is determined by what is known specifically to dummy. I would rule according to what is known to the whole table.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2017-February-28, 02:31, said:

I don't see that it is determined by what is known specifically to dummy. I would rule according to what is known to the whole table.

Yes, I think that is right, but often the players are of vastly different abilities. RR is unlikely to even know what the contract is.

[lamford]

pran, on 2017-February-28, 02:00, said:

Normally I am not last to play. Even to you that is a special case.

And it appears to me that you are saying precisely the same as I have said twice already.

No, normally you ARE last to play when declarer uses the expression "Win it". He never uses the expression when leading from dummy, and rarely when second or third to play. I agree with your latest proposal that dummy should try to win the trick to the best of his ability, but with the LOWEST card known to win the trick if possible.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2017-February-28, 04:59, said:

Yes, I think that is right, but often the players are of vastly different abilities. RR is unlikely to even know what the contract is.

Then with RR at the table, I think they have to play the highest card of the suit unless dummy is last to play.

[pran]

lamford, on 2017-February-28, 05:02, said:

No, normally you ARE last to play when declarer uses the expression "Win it". He never uses the expression when leading from dummy, and rarely when second or third to play. I agree with your latest proposal that dummy should try to win the trick to the best of his ability, but with the LOWEST card known to win the trick if possible.

I agree that declerer never uses that expression when leading from Dummy and that has never been anything but a red herring in this thread.

But according to my own experience I claim that Declarer most often uses the expression when Dummy is second or third to play to the trick.

When Dummy is fourth the question is usually whether Declarer wants to be in his own hand or in Dummy for leading to the next trick and then it is not at all about winning the trick.

[weejonnie]

At least Dummy will explicitly be able to prevent declarer revoking. (42A3). This is an improvement (although I haven't yet been called on it - and in any case law 44C would surely allow dummy to take steps - but not suggest a play.)

The addition of "of the suit led" means that dummy cannot of his own volition trump a lead - after all declarer may think they are in a different denomination. This reduces some of the anomalies.

TBH, I think that 'win it' should only apply when dummy is last to play to a trick, otherwise we can decide on option 2 (lowest card)), option 4 (may designate any legal card), or option 5 (defenders choose). Or decide that 'win' means 'high' and add it into that part of the laws. Or force directors to purchase lie detectors to find out what declarers know.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2017-February-27, 21:27, said:

Interestingly, the 2017 laws will make it unclear what dummy has to do when the only way to win the trick is to ruff high. Adding "of the suit led" has created this ambiguity where none existed!

I thought it was intended to resolve the ambiguity, not create it. If dummy doesn't have a card of the suit led, 46B4 comes into play: "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is invalid and declarer may designate any legal card."

[axman]

pran, on 2017-February-28, 02:21, said:

And revoke?

I presently am in the state of turmoil. Prior to this thread I had no difficulty with designating 'win', including those cases which compel** dummy to revoke. After all, there are remedies for revokes. However, the discourse so far has made it plain that the instruction, 'win' is a command to dummy to participate (in contravention of law) in the play, and, I do have problems with that; the view I am contemplating for an appropriate remedy is that declarer's RHO may (but, not must) specify the card (subject to L59) in addition to warranting a severe penalty (as declarer gains information from RHO's exercise of penalty).

** being declarer's agent, dummy is compelled to execute declarer's commands

[barmar]

axman, on 2017-February-28, 13:00, said:

a command to dummy to participate (in contravention of law) in the play,

How can the law be in contravention of the law?

The prohibition against participating is a general one, but there are numerous exceptions sprinkled throughout the laws, and this is just one of them. The theme is that they generally don't require dummy to excercise a significant amount of judgement, they're mostly about the mechanics of the game (like asking declarer if he has revoked when he fails to follow suit).

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2017-February-28, 02:02, said:

(If playing my highest card to the trick is not declarer's intention he should use the word "cover" rather than "win" with his request.)

Actually, what declarer should do is comply with Law 46A and specify both the denomination and the rank of the card he's playing.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-28, 15:55, said:

Actually, what declarer should do is comply with Law 46A and specify both the denomination and the rank of the card he's playing.

Maybe change that to "must" in the Law, and then you can have a field day with the PPs.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2017-February-28, 06:16, said:

Then with RR at the table, I think they have to play the highest card of the suit unless dummy is last to play.

RR might not even know whether all the trumps have gone (or whether there are any trumps), and it might well not be known to him that dummy's highest card of the suit led would win the trick. The law says:

"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." It does not say "If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick he is deemed to have called the lowest card that declarer knows will win the trick," so your interpretation is not according to the Law, and dummy cannot know what declarer knows. Dummy can play the card that he knows will win the trick, but that is not what the law says either. Dummy can call the TD (because there has been an irregularity), but is not obliged to do so. If dummy plays the card that he knows will win the trick, or that he thinks declarer knows will win the trick, then he is complying as best he can. "It is known" is a terrible construction in both this and the new laws. They are looking into changing this, but don't hold your breath.

In theory what is known to dummy is known to the whole table, as dummy has no extra information above that held by others, so maybe dummy should play the card he knows will win the trick. Sometimes of course, he cannot know as he does not know if the highest card is going to be ruffed. Then he cannot comply and the TD should be called.

[StevenG]

What, then, if the card that dummy plays doesn't win the trick?

[barmar]

StevenG, on 2017-March-01, 09:50, said:

What, then, if the card that dummy plays doesn't win the trick?

I think it's tacitly understood that "win" is short for "try to win", and this is the spirit that drives the wording of the law.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-February-28, 11:12, said:

I thought it was intended to resolve the ambiguity, not create it. If dummy doesn't have a card of the suit led, 46B4 comes into play: "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is invalid and declarer may designate any legal card."

However, if declarer says "Win it" when dummy does not have a card of the suit led, declarer has not called for a card that is not in dummy, so 46B4 does not come into play. If dummy has a trump, and it is "known" that this will win the trick, then this trump has to be played, to comply with the request to "Win it". It is is only if dummy has a card of the suit led that dummy is deemed to play the lowest card that will be known to win the trick.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2017-March-01, 09:14, said:

Maybe change that to "must" in the Law, and then you can have a field day with the PPs.

Sure. Except that neither one of those things is going to happen.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2017-March-01, 10:51, said:

However, if declarer says "Win it" when dummy does not have a card of the suit led, declarer has not called for a card that is not in dummy, so 46B4 does not come into play. If dummy has a trump, and it is "known" that this will win the trick, then this trump has to be played, to comply with the request to "Win it". It is is only if dummy has a card of the suit led that dummy is deemed to play the lowest card that will be known to win the trick.

But the new law specifically says "of the suit led", so it can't be a request to play a trump. It's a request to play the lowest card of the suit led that will win the trick. If he has no such card, he's called for a card that isn't in dummy, so 46B4 comes into play. The same would be true if dummy does have cards of the suit led, but they're all lower than the highest card played so far.

it seems like you're interpreting 46B4 as only applying when declarer makes a proper designation per 46A, rather than applying to the card described by applying the disambiguation rules in 46B1-3. I disagree.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-March-01, 19:48, said:

But the new law specifically says "of the suit led", so it can't be a request to play a trump. It's a request to play the lowest card of the suit led that will win the trick. If he has no such card, he's called for a card that isn't in dummy, so 46B4 comes into play. The same would be true if dummy does have cards of the suit led, but they're all lower than the highest card played so far.

it seems like you're interpreting 46B4 as only applying when declarer makes a proper designation per 46A, rather than applying to the card described by applying the disambiguation rules in 46B1-3. I disagree.

Your interpretation is also very reasonable. However, you are effectively saying, if declarer knows he can win the trick, and says "Win", he is not obliged to do so if he cannot win the trick by playing a card of the same suit. I disagree. Your interpretation might be correct if 46B4 said:
If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, or does not unambiguously specify a card, the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card.

We will still get arguments as to what "win" means, of course. I think "win" means the lowest card in the same suit that is known will win the trick, else the lowest trump that is known will the trick where dummy does not have a card of the suit led. I suggested to the WBFLC the following change:

If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick (or similar), and dummy is last to play, he is deemed to have called the lowest card that will win the trick. Otherwise, dummy is deemed to play the highest card of the suit led, or the highest trump in dummy.

It also probably needs clarification as to how "over-ruff", "under-ruff", "cover", "duck", and many of the terms very commonly used are applied when the call can be fulfilled in more than one way. I think all are requests to play the lowest card that complies with the accepted meaning of the word, but if dummy cannot comply - for example RR says "over-ruff" and the contract is no-trumps - then declarer may designate any legal card.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2017-March-02, 03:52, said:

I suggested to the WBFLC the following change:

If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick (or similar), and dummy is last to play, he is deemed to have called the lowest card that will win the trick. Otherwise, dummy is deemed to play the highest card of the suit led, or the highest trump in dummy.

You still need language in 46B4 to deal with what happens if dummy doesn't have any of these cards. Why declarer would say "win" when dummy is out of both the suit led and trumps escapes me, but I'm sure SB could find a way to turn it to his advantage.