[helene_t]

In a 6♠ contract, declarer played a diamond from her hand, intending to ruff with the deuce of trump.

As her LHO played to the trick, she said, without noticing the card played by LHO: "deuce, please".

As dummy reached for ♠2 (but still hadn't touched it), declarer noticed that LHO had ruffed with ♠Q, and declarer now said "oops", which caused dummy to hesitate.

Declarer then took ♥2 from dummy and said "that's a deuce, too".

Is this legal? Suppose ♠K had been in the dummy, would she be allowed to over-ruff?

If it's legal, is it still bad sportsmanship?

[gordontd]

Quote

L46B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call
In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be
played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s
different intention is incontrovertible):

I think declarer's intention to play the ♠2 is incontrovertible.

[RMB1]

If the declarer's intention to play ♠2 was incontrovertible (it sounds as if it was) then it is played. Otherwise declarer can choose which deuce to play. (Law 46B)

Declarer could not play ♠K, the "deuce" was not an unintended designatation (Law 45B4b).

[pran]

gordontd, on Aug 21 2010, 04:09 PM, said:

Quote

L46B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call
In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be
played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s
different intention is incontrovertible):

I think declarer's intention to play the ♠2 is incontrovertible.

No doubt about that!

[axman]

gordontd, on Aug 21 2010, 10:09 AM, said:

Quote

L46B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call
In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be
played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s
different intention is incontrovertible):

I think declarer's intention to play the ♠2 is incontrovertible.

It sounds like there are numerous issues.

Declarer, two defenders, and dummy are at the table. LHO has played a card after declarer has led. Is it not possible, nay probable that declarer has seen the card that LHO has just played? I should think so. Now, consider when it is a fact; then it is therefore likely that declarer had intended the H2 be the card to be obviously played- however, declarer might well have intended the S2 under ruff the SQ, to play the S2 regardless of LHO’s card. as such, it is not certain that the H2 was intended nor is it certain the S2 was intended. And because it is possible that declarer was paying attention, even if not- it is not certain that either was intended. And to be incontrovertibly intended there must be certainty. And further because we can not be certain that declarer was paying attention it is not incontrovertible that one particular 2 was intended.

To meet the standard of incontrovertible there must be some corresponding overt act that makes the intention indisputable- a statement notarized before naming, pointing a finger at the card, something overt and not contradictory in any way.

Therefore, L46B3 in this case provides that declarer name the particular 2.


However, we are not done yet.

There are two deuces in dummy and declarer has named a rank but not a suit AND dummy has reached for the S2 thereby suggesting a play in contravention of L43A1c:

Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

The law specifies ramifications for this breach:

L45 F. Dummy Indicates Card

After dummy’s hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement) without instruction from declarer. If he does so the Director should be summoned forthwith and informed of the action. Play continues. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to declarer and the defenders were damaged by the play suggested.

As such as much as the defenders might wish to specify which deuce must be played the law specifies that it is up to declarer. And further specifies that there may be L45F repercussions.

One last thought. for those who remember the Menagerie I believe there was a hand that the Hog was defending against the Rabbit where something similar took place- where the Rabbit having gotten put into this fix was bound and determined to under ruff and the Hog was bound and determined to get him to not under ruff. Why was the Hog so intent on declarer not ‘waste’ his trump? Because the under ruff was the only card that would pulverize his defense.

[blackshoe]

It seems clear to me that declarer's "2, please" referred to the 2 of trump, and his "that's a deuce, too" was an illegal attempt to avoid under ruffing. So I would rule the 2 of spades is played.

It seems to me that Axman's complications would be better discussed on blml, where they delight in such things.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Aug 21 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

It seems clear to me that declarer's "2, please" referred to the 2 of trump, and his "that's a deuce, too" was an illegal attempt to avoid under ruffing. So I would rule the 2 of spades is played.

It seems to me that Axman's complications would be better discussed on blml, where they delight in such things.

Axman might have had a case had not declarer said "Oops".

That remark by declarer gave her away.

[jnichols]

blackshoe, on Aug 21 2010, 03:01 PM, said:

It seems clear to me that declarer's "2, please" referred to the 2 of trump, and his "that's a deuce, too" was an illegal attempt to avoid under ruffing. So I would rule the 2 of spades is played.

It seems to me that Axman's complications would be better discussed on blml, where they delight in such things.

Initially the deuce of trump did not seem to be declarer's incontrovertible intention. But the statement "that's a deuce, too" certainly clarifies that it was declarer's intention.

[bluejak]

axman, on Aug 21 2010, 05:46 PM, said:

To meet the standard of incontrovertible there must be some corresponding overt act that makes the intention indisputable- a statement notarized before naming, pointing a finger at the card, something overt and not contradictory in any way.

To meet the standard of "incontrovertible" the evidence has to convince the TD. In this case the evidence is convincing so the standard is met.

helene_t, on Aug 21 2010, 04:04 PM, said:

Declarer then took ♥2 from dummy and said "that's a deuce, too".

That is definitely bad sportsmanship. I would explain about ethics to declarer.