[mycroft]

I am willing to be convinced that my logic is incorrect. However, I notice that nobody's yet bothered to try, they've just ignored it in favour of their own beliefs.

The ones where "play anything" in a pitch situation means "well, obviously not the ♥Q, I meant some low card", I'm happy to get the TD over to adjudicate. But when following suit, not mentioning a rank means "low" - the Law says so (para 1 caveat applies).

[pran]

mycroft, on 2021-June-06, 11:15, said:

I am willing to be convinced that my logic is incorrect. However, I notice that nobody's yet bothered to try, they've just ignored it in favour of their own beliefs.

The ones where "play anything" in a pitch situation means "well, obviously not the ♥Q, I meant some low card", I'm happy to get the TD over to adjudicate. But when following suit, not mentioning a rank means "low" - the Law says so (para 1 caveat applies).

I have a big problem with people arguing like this and strongly resent the accusation that I do argue in favour of my own belief.
I argue in my capacity as a licensed Director qualified in 1980 and with the true belief that the World Bridge Federation indeed acts in the best interests of this game of Bridge that we all love.

So please do the rest of us a favour and state why (if so) you find the the current Law 46 replacing the corresponding laws in 1949 (see below) unfortunate.
Alternatively feel free to state your own suggested version of Law 46 in your own words with your own logic clearly understandable.

The laws from 1949 said:

50. A card in any hand is played when named as the one a player proposes to play; but a player may change his designation if he does so practically in the same breath. or if he designates a card which is not there.

51. A card in any unfaced hand is played when it touches the table face upwards after being detached from the remaining cards with apparent intent to play; a defender's card so detached is also played as soon as his partner sees its face.

52. Unless touched for a purpose other than play either manifest or mentioned, a card in dummy is played when touched by declarer and a card in any other faced hand is played when touched by its owner.

[mycroft]

I did not say that you argue in favour of your own belief, nor would I say doing that is a problem. I argue for my own belief all the time, either because I think I'm right or because I need to understand why I'm wrong. In fact, that's how I learned why "run the hearts", despite being a "statement that [declarer] will win [tricks] other than the one in progress" isn't a claim.

What I said was "I made an argument that here, 'play' means the same as 'heart' - i.e. 'play low'. Instead of addressing that argument, you (and others) just begged the question to say 'defenders can call for the K'."

Re: your question about the laws: I don't find it unfortunate in the slightest. I much prefer the current Laws. I note that none of those three refer to what's being discussed in L46, either, but are the equivalent of L45C - so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up in this context. Why you're bringing it up in the original context of this thread, re: "run the hearts", that I can see.

But finally, I notice you still are ignoring my argument that "play" in the context of following suit is a L46B2, rather than a L46B5, situation.

[pran]

mycroft, on 2021-June-07, 09:07, said:

I did not say that you argue in favour of your own belief, nor would I say doing that is a problem. I argue for my own belief all the time, either because I think I'm right or because I need to understand why I'm wrong. In fact, that's how I learned why "run the hearts", despite being a "statement that [declarer] will win [tricks] other than the one in progress" isn't a claim.

What I said was "I made an argument that here, 'play' means the same as 'heart' - i.e. 'play low'. Instead of addressing that argument, you (and others) just begged the question to say 'defenders can call for the K'."

Re: your question about the laws: I don't find it unfortunate in the slightest. I much prefer the current Laws. I note that none of those three refer to what's being discussed in L46, either, but are the equivalent of L45C - so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up in this context. Why you're bringing it up in the original context of this thread, re: "run the hearts", that I can see.

But finally, I notice you still are ignoring my argument that "play" in the context of following suit is a L46B2, rather than a L46B5, situation.

The word 'play' (alone) does never automatically satisfy the conditions for applying law 46B2 rather than 46B5 (for instance when following suit without specifying rank or if only one denomination is available in dummy).

I shall, however, in most such situations accept that declarer intended to request the lowest ranked available card from dummy when only one denomination was available.

Still, such careless use of legal terms exposes an indifference to the laws which itself can only be considered a violation of Law 74.

[mycroft]

I can accept that, although I think that when following suit, the Laws enforce as the player's ultimate duty which suit is to be played. The player need not state it - he can do nothing else. As I said, that to me makes it a 46B2 situation, in the same way that "low" would uniquely define a card (to us all, the same card as "heart", and to me, the same card as "play") But "low" is dealt with in L46B1c, so the case is definitely open.

I do believe that "declarer's [] intention is incontrovertible" when he uses "play" when following suit, and would never have thought about it before this discussion.(*)

Given that the entirety of L46B is "we realize nobody has ever followed L46A, and the chance we can get them to do this (frankly, the chance we can get *us* to do this) ranks right up there with Boris rejoining the EU, so here's what the 'standard cheats' mean", I don't think that penalizing players for hitting an "unclear exception" is going to work.

This is definitely something we should get an official interpretation on. Now if only there was a way to get an RAs official interpretation on laws issues...

* Note: this is what I was getting at when mentioning "native English speaker". It is only because I play and direct all my bridge in English that I would make that association. In Norwegian, perhaps the terms used are different, and so you wouldn't automatically make that association; and it would be perfectly reasonable not to do so.

[pran]

mycroft, on 2021-June-07, 11:38, said:

.........
This is definitely something we should get an official interpretation on. Now if only there was a way to get an RAs official interpretation on laws issues..
.......

We already have. You just have to look at the right place:

Law 46 B said:

Incomplete or Invalid Designation
In the case of an incomplete or invalid designation, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):
............

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-June-07, 11:38, said:

Given that the entirety of L46B is "we realize nobody has ever followed L46A, and the chance we can get them to do this (frankly, the chance we can get *us* to do this) ranks right up there with Boris rejoining the EU, so here's what the 'standard cheats' mean", I don't think that penalizing players for hitting an "unclear exception" is going to work.

ROTFL (because of the amusing writing and obvious truth, not because happy about either situation).

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2021-June-07, 11:38, said:

I do believe that "declarer's [] intention is incontrovertible" when he uses "play" when following suit, and would never have thought about it before this discussion.(*)

The fact that declarer is playing from dummy to a trick to which dummy is not leading does not imply that dummy's intention is to follow suit. Consider the revoke. Also consider the fact that the oft-cited "dummy can't revoke" is nonsense.

[mycroft]

That is absolutely a valid argument (except you mean "declarer's intention", I think. Dummy's intention is to "shut up and dummy" :-).

However, it implies that declarer's intent could be violating their obligation that "takes precedence over all other requirements in the Laws". And it is possible. But I don't think it overcomes "incontrovertible", because frankly, if that was their intent, they deserve what they get by not naming the card and being told "you have to follow suit" (by any of the players at the table, or the director if you want to be absolutely to Law. Note this is another situation where you and one other are the only ones who would do that, and "I'm not sure about thee").

I think if you find the person whose intent was to revoke by saying "play", ever (save on purpose having read this conversation), then you deserve the beer you're going to need after the chaos ends.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps I should have said "declarer's intention for dummy".

[Douglas43]

jillybean, on 2021-May-30, 08:17, said:

I so rarely see this, it is by far the norm to use abbreviations, or even a nod of the head.
I am not suggesting "experienced" is good or within the laws, but it is the approach most experienced players take.

IMO one sign of an experienced dummy is you make declarer tell you what card he wants before you play it.

[pran]

Douglas43, on 2021-June-11, 15:08, said:

IMO one sign of an experienced dummy is you make declarer tell you what card he wants before you play it.

Creating superfluous noise at the table ?
(Unless, of course, when you are sincere unsure of which card he indicates)