BBO Discussion Forums: Played card - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Played card

#21 User is offline   kevperk 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: 2007-April-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas

Posted 2012-August-14, 16:35

View Postpran, on 2012-August-14, 15:33, said:

If Declarer had said "2 of spades" then no card had been led because Dummy has no 2 of spades.
If there hadn't been any 2 in Dummy then no card had been played when Declarer just said "two".
In either case he would have been requested to clarify his call for a card (L46B4)

If there are more than one 2 in dummy and Declarer just said "two" then he would have been requested to specify which of the available "2"s he wanted to play (L46B3{b})


That is what I meant when I said the 3 of spades would be led. Of course declarer would be asked to clarify, and he would clarify that he meant the 3.

My point is, it seems silly to rule based on whether declarer is lucky enough to not have the rank named in another suit.
0

#22 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,160
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2012-August-15, 01:54

View Postc_corgi, on 2012-August-14, 16:32, said:

L46B1-5 do not apply when "declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible", which it surely is here. His objective was to designate dummy's lowest spade, but he actually called for "two" intending the 2 of spades. Since the 2 of spades is not in dummy, L46B4 would apply, so declarer could then designate any card of his choosing from dummy without being restricted to the lowest spade. Whichever laws are applied, I don't see how the 2 of diamonds can possibly be played.

Whether declarer's intention is incontrovertible is a matter of judgement (first by TD and, if TD's judgement is appealed - next by AC).

As the thread has gone so far I have insufficient information to judge either way but have based my comments on the original TD judgement which apparently was that declarer's intention was not incontrovertible.
0

#23 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 11,768
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-August-15, 09:40

View Postpran, on 2012-August-15, 01:54, said:

As the thread has gone so far I have insufficient information to judge either way but have based my comments on the original TD judgement which apparently was that declarer's intention was not incontrovertible.

When were we told the original TD's judgement? The OP asks a question, it doesn't state what the TD ruled, and he hasn't posted a followup.

#24 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,699
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2012-August-21, 12:50

View Postc_corgi, on 2012-August-10, 05:15, said:

Using Ahydra's example of AQ over the king. With AQ in declarers hand and the K on his right, LHO leads the suit and RHO plays the king. My understanding is that there is a distinction between:

1. Declarer intends to play the Ace, but looks down and finds the Queen on the table instead
2. Declarer intends to win the trick as cheaply as possible, but miscalculates, momentarily thinking that the Queen will have the desired effect.

I think in case 1 he is allowed to change the card and in case 2 he is not.


I believe that the fact that you think that since in case 1 he is allowed to change the card, he is allowed to change the card in the OP. However, in case 1 above declarer is not allowed to change the card; perhaps that knowledge will change your assessment of the OP case.

View Postkevperk, on 2012-August-14, 16:35, said:

My point is, it seems silly to rule based on whether declarer is lucky enough to not have the rank named in another suit.


Declarer committed an infraction. Yes, it is a matter of luck whether or not he lands on his feet, as is very often the case with infractions. Sometimes a "meaningless" revoke will result in the loss of a trick, and sometimes the revoke with the same card in the same contract won't -- for example, if in the latter case the defenders had already won all the tricks they were entitled to.

I think that it is best to follow the rules, and not to worry about whether some people seemingly "get away with it" when they do not follow them, while others don't. Should the fact that one offender emerged unharmed mean that all should? In this case rules are meaningless.
London, England
0

#25 User is offline   kevperk 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: 2007-April-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas

Posted 2012-August-21, 15:55

View Postkevperk, on 2012-August-14, 16:35, said:

That is what I meant when I said the 3 of spades would be led. Of course declarer would be asked to clarify, and he would clarify that he meant the 3.

My point is, it seems silly to rule based on whether declarer is lucky enough to not have the rank named in another suit.



View PostVampyr, on 2012-August-21, 12:50, said:

<first part snipped>

Declarer committed an infraction. Yes, it is a matter of luck whether or not he lands on his feet, as is very often the case with infractions. Sometimes a "meaningless" revoke will result in the loss of a trick, and sometimes the revoke with the same card in the same contract won't -- for example, if in the latter case the defenders had already won all the tricks they were entitled to.

I think that it is best to follow the rules, and not to worry about whether some people seemingly "get away with it" when they do not follow them, while others don't. Should the fact that one offender emerged unharmed mean that all should? In this case rules are meaningless.


Yes, luck does play a part in whether infractions cost or not, but this is the only case I can think of where the luck has to do with cards in other suits. I too think it is best to follow the rules, but, in this case, there is a clause - "unless declarer's intentions are incontrovertible" that seems to apply in this situation. If it is certain which card declarer would play if he were to reach to the board and play the card himself, it seems this is the card that should be played to the trick.
0

#26 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

Posted 2012-August-22, 09:20

Declarer made an incomplete designation, and his intention was clear, so the low spade is played.

Declarer intended to play the 2. I woudl have thought that if you interpret "two" as asking for 2 then his designation was unintended.

So I would allow it to be changed to the lowest spade under either Law 45C4B or Law 46B [1st para, words in parentheses].
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users