[lamford]

---

Swiss Teams, National Event.

This was a board that caused some ill-feeling yesterday at a national event. East-West were juniors, not that experienced and probably equivalent to B flight in US. North-South were experienced. North led the five of spades against 3NT and declarer won, led the ten of diamonds to the king and asked for "another diamond". Dummy asked, "which one?", and declarer said "the ace". The TD was called and he ruled that declarer had to lead a small diamond from dummy, and the contract now went 3 off.

Do you agree with the ruling?

[manudude03]

There is no clause saying "unless it was obvious" or something to that effect, so by the letter of the law, the ruling is correct, but I would have a very low opinion of N/S for calling the director and not invoking 81C5.

[sfi]

I want to know why East was even asking the question rather than just playing a low diamond.

And yes, I agree with ruling.

Edit: Just noticed E-W were the less experienced pair. Now I would be more likely to let the table score stand with a warning to declarer to be more careful and one to East about participating in the play as dummy.

[lamford]

manudude03, on 2017-April-17, 05:41, said:

There is no clause saying "unless it was obvious" or something to that effect, so by the letter of the law, the ruling is correct, but I would have a very low opinion of N/S for calling the director and not invoking 81C5.

There is a clause, in both the old and new laws, which states, "(except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible)". The most common definition of this last word on a search, is: "not able to be denied or disputed". I think the ruling is incorrect, even by the letter of the law, as, in my opinion, declarer's incontrovertible intention was to play "another" honour. Like Hillary Clinton, he misspoke. Why is the clause there? For situations like this, surely.

FWIW, I totally disagree that there is any obligation on the defenders to ask the TD to invoke 81C5. I would do so, if, for example, someone with difficulty holding the cards dropped an honour, but in general the game should be played by the rules. I do agree that dummy should not have asked, of course.

[manudude03]

lamford, on 2017-April-17, 06:06, said:

There is a clause, in both the old and new laws, which states, "(except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible)". The most common definition of this last word on a search, is: "not able to be denied or disputed". I think the ruling is incorrect, even by the letter of the law, as, in my opinion, declarer's incontrovertible intention was to play "another" honour. Like Hillary Clinton, he misspoke. Why is the clause there? For situations like this.

FWIW, I totally disagree that there is any obligation on the defenders to ask the TD to invoke 81C5. I would do so, if, for example, someone with difficulty holding the cards dropped an honour, but in general the game should be played by the rules. I do agree that dummy should not have asked, of course.

While my sympathies are very much with declarer here, "brain farts" happen. Perhaps declarer thought he was playing in 4H which would make a small diamond strange, but not unheard of (playing the suit to have broken 3-1) and we can't really use the fact declarer later said ace since in theory it may have been influenced by dummy. If the suit was something like AKQJ2, I wouldn't force declarer to play the 2.

[lamford]

manudude03, on 2017-April-17, 07:25, said:

While my sympathies are very much with declarer here, "brain farts" happen. Perhaps declarer thought he was playing in 4H which would make a small diamond strange, but not unheard of (playing the suit to have broken 3-1) and we can't really use the fact declarer later said ace since in theory it may have been influenced by dummy. If the suit was something like AKQJ2, I wouldn't force declarer to play the 2.

If I were editing a bridge magazine and read that declarer played "two rounds of diamonds and claimed ten tricks when they broke", I might correct that to "two top diamonds and claimed ten tricks when they broke" but I would still regard the meaning of the first version as incontrovertible. How does one define "incontrovertible"? It seems to me that the "brain fart" theory means that nothing is ever "incontrovertible", and that defeats the whole purpose of the clause, to excuse sloppy wording. Whether that is right is another question but if fits in with the increasing principle of the new laws not punishing people for carelessness.

[blackshoe]

81C5 permits waiver of rectification "for cause". What is the cause here?

I don't think declarer's different intention is incontrovertible here. He ought to want another high diamond, sure, but that doesn't mean he did, at that moment.

Some might suggest we ask declarer what his intention was. Of course, if he says his intention was to call for the king, some would disregard that statement because it's self-serving.

Aside from that, failure to designate both the suit and the rank of the card to be played is "an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized" (see Law 46A and the Introduction to the Laws). Rectification is not penalty; "not often penalized" here does not mean "rectification will rarely be applied".

Bottom line, I agree with the TD's ruling.

I agree that there is no obligation on the defenders to invoke Law 81C5, even if there were a legitimate cause for which to waive rectification.

[barmar]

Regardless of how we decide the main question, I think dummy needs to be penalized for his question. A beginner could be excused for asking the question (they may not know there's a default for an incomplete designation, so think it's a reasonable question), but flight B-equivalents should know that "a diamond" means "low diamond". Asking the question about which diamond can be considered participating in the play and/or calling attention to the irregularity, both of which are prohibited for dummy.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-April-17, 08:45, said:

Regardless of how we decide the main question, I think dummy needs to be penalized for his question. A beginner could be excused for asking the question (they may not know there's a default for an incomplete designation, so think it's a reasonable question), but flight B-equivalents should know that "a diamond" means "low diamond". Asking the question about which diamond can be considered participating in the play and/or calling attention to the irregularity, both of which are prohibited for dummy.

While their standard may have been Flight B, this was their first adult tournament, and previously they had played in Junior Squad training events, where the niceties of the laws took a back seat to backwash squeezes.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2017-April-17, 08:50, said:

While their standard may have been Flight B, this was their first adult tournament, and previously they had played in Junior Squad training events, where the niceties of the laws took a back seat to backwash squeezes.

No club games?

It's not a matter of the laws being enforced strictly, but just something players learn over time from other players, mostly in club games.

[barmar]

BTW, I'll bet 90% of the players who know that "a heart" means "a low heart" have no idea that this is officially enshrined in the Laws. They probably assume this is just one of those irregularities that everyone ignores, like picking up your bidding cards to make the last pass.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-April-17, 09:04, said:

No club games?

It's not a matter of the laws being enforced strictly, but just something players learn over time from other players, mostly in club games.

I would imagine they have played club games, or possibly school duplicates. And age-restricted events. I suspect these are all much more lax.

[pran]

To the point:
The player did not ask for a Diamond, he asked for another Diamond (after winning wih the King).

Given the facts I find it hard to doubt that the only thing in his mind was to play for a 2-2 break in Diamonds.

[mycroft]

National Event. Is it too much to ask that people know how to play by the time they get there?

If you don't want the TD or the opponents thinking for you, follow the laws. Say "there's a trump out" when you claim. Call for "top diamond".

Or, if you're as pedantic as Blackshoe, claim explaining every trick and calling "diamond King" (or Heart eight-spot) every single time. Not only does it work, it's legal - and doesn't rely on "interpretations of infractions that have been enshrined in the Law because they happen universally" to be clear.

And yes, I don't do that - although I do always mention the trump out, unless I've just pulled enough trump to prove they split, because the law is so strong. Nobody does (except Blackshoe). But we teach the relevant laws to beginners, right? Right? And even if not, you get there before your first National Event, right? Right? And if not, then we can't explain to them at their first National Event that "people might be lax about enforcing the rules in the 'friendly clubs", but this is what the Law says, and this event is serious enough to enforce them as written", or they'll never play again? Instead of learning what they *should* do, and just doing it next time (and maybe being the one calling next time it was "queen-no-ace" or "diamond" "which one?" "The high one" against them)?

O tempora! O mores!

Seriously, though, we look at it and decide. If it's obvious beyond doubt that declarer wasn't a trick ahead of himself, or had gone from not thinking to thinking, then we allow the top diamond. If not, we don't. It won't be the biggest mistake this declarer makes this tournament - just the one that the opponents and the director take the blame for "being the bully" on.

[gszes]

This was not some careless LOP chosen by declarer (Note the Dia T to the King). Declarer (imho) was going to finesse lho for Hxx on the second round of diamonds if H dropped from rho on first round of diamonds. Another diamond merely means declarer was going to try and run the suit since the ONLY POSSIBLE way to make any more dia tricks was to play the other top honor. It is utter (pun intended) nonsense to assume any dia but the K could possibly be the intended LOP. The purpose of the LAWS is not to promote a career as a lawyer amongst our membership but to try and make sure the outcome is fair. There is ZERO fairness in forcing declarer to make the INSANE play of a small dia when the intent is so obvious.

[sanst]

gszes, on 2017-April-17, 14:46, said:

This was not some careless LOP chosen by declarer (Note the Dia T to the King). Declarer (imho) was going to finesse lho for Hxx on the second round of diamonds if H dropped from rho on first round of diamonds. Another diamond merely means declarer was going to try and run the suit since the ONLY POSSIBLE way to make any more dia tricks was to play the other top honor. It is utter (pun intended) nonsense to assume any dia but the K could possibly be the intended LOP. The purpose of the LAWS is not to promote a career as a lawyer amongst our membership but to try and make sure the outcome is fair. There is ZERO fairness in forcing declarer to make the INSANE play of a small dia when the intent is so obvious.

I do agree, but please don't put all those caps in your text. It doesn't add anything, but it makes the reading like listening to someone shouting his head off.

[VixTD]

If dummy had done as asked and played a small diamond and declarer had said "No, I meant (another) top diamond!", preferably immediately, but at any rate before playing from his own hand, I can't see why the director would not allow the change of card. (It's not as if making an inadvertent designation and then changing it could have worked to his advantage.) In this instance dummy's intervention has probably not alerted declarer to the fact that he should have played a top diamond - he knew that before he called for the card. It may have rescued him from playing on if he was unaware he could have changed his call.

I think I would allow the change, and quite probably fine dummy, although possibly just give a warning.

[PeterAlan]

VixTD, on 2017-April-20, 09:38, said:

If dummy had done as asked and played a small diamond ...

I'd be pretty confident that dummy won't have known that the Laws mean that a small diamond was being called for.

I'm slightly surprised that both here and in over 140 posts on Bridgewinners no-one has mentioned the possibility of an appeal. It seems to me that these lads needed a mentor (preferably with £20 in his / her pocket) to explain gently some of the facts of bridge life and to guide and help them through issues like this one.

[weejonnie]

Dura lex, sed lex. (The law is hard but it is the law).

If declarer's intention was incontrovertible then surely dummy would have played the Ace as a matter of course.

However, I suppose on appeal declarer could say "Of course I meant the Ace and thought it was so blindingly obvious that I forgot that the way I asked for it meant that I was asking for a small one"

I would, to be honest, be prepared to accept declarer's position. Looking at the hand it is incontrovertible that the only way that EW are going to make 9 tricks before the defence take 5 is if the diamonds are running.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2017-April-21, 08:14, said:

If declarer's intention was incontrovertible then surely dummy would have played the Ace as a matter of course.

Dummy is not psychic. He could not tell declarer did not have QJT of diamonds, when declarer would indeed lead a low one. He asked because he did not know that "another heart" meant a small one. Mind you, given the screw-up with "win it" being ambiguous (and the WBFLC doing nothing to correct it despite being aware of the bug two weeks before the final version of the new laws), the juniors in this tournament could hardly be expected to know what the latest interpretation of "another" was. And the meaning of "another" split the cognoscenti on another site approximately 50-50.