[lamford]

---

Table Result 6NT= Lead Q♣. Matchpoints.

The North London club decided to use the new laws this week, as practice for the TDs, and Vampyr had a busy evening with at least three TD calls. Against 6NT, West led the Q♣ and RR, South, who had wrongly interpreted 4NT as ordinary Blackwood, played two rounds of each suit other than diamonds and then played a diamond from South in this position:

---

West played the six and RR hummed and harred for a while, and then said "Win it". SB, dummy, had a complete count on the hand and played the eight, and when East showed out, even RR had no problem using his major suit entries for two more diamond finesses. This was a complete top for RR and SB (most pairs had stopped in 3NT or 4NT). ChCh, West, was unhappy. "Dummy participated in the play", he said. "Director, please".

The TD arrived and SB was quickly in. "Another complete waste of time," he ridiculed. "The new laws are very clear on a Incomplete Call:
46B1(b) If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit led that it is known will win the trick."

"In this case, RR had a complete count on the hand, and it was known that the 8♦ will win the trick. Indeed the interpretation that is considered by the BLML so far is: 'What I think it means is "the smallest card of the suit led that is higher than the other cards played to the trick so far. So, even adopting that interpretation, RR is deemed to play the 8♦", SB chortled. "I think we can agree that the result stands, can't we TD?"

How do you rule?

.

[TylerE]

Result stands and a PP for N, for violating 43a1c? "Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer. "

[weejonnie]

I wondered how long it would take SB to dissect the 2017 laws. I rule against RR & SB.

An incomplete designation is an infraction and since RR could have known when he made that infraction that the action would damage his opponents then the director should award an adjusted score. (old law 23, law 72C now?)

In fact law 46B1b only changes in that the words "of the suit led" have been added, so presumably in such circumstance when this applies the designation is void and declarer has to make a fresh designation (previously it meant that dummy would have to play the lowest trump that it was known would win the trick) - dummy can presumably tell declarer that he cannot comply - or can he?

[weejonnie]

TylerE, on 2017-February-23, 10:11, said:

Result stands and a PP for N, for violating 43a1c? "Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer. "

But law 42a3 states

"3. He plays the cards of the dummy as declarer’s agent as directed and ensures that dummy
follows suit (see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play)."

So he has been directed to 'win' - and he has done. There is nothing in the law here that could force dummy to assume that declarer does not know as much about the hand as he did.

Note that this is not contrary to my earlier post - the infraction is RR's, not SB's.

[barmar]

Lamford, have you joined the Yahoo group to discuss the new laws? If not, why not? You spend an awful amount of time finding these loopholes, presumably with the objective of improving the Laws, why not participate in the process directly? I'm getting tired of forwarding links to these threads to the ACBL LC.

[mycroft]

This is "in discussion", with AdamW saying that it will likely be interpreted as "lowest card higher than so far played". So, SB would be doing what was correct, but woe betide him when he puts up the A felling the 9.

Having said that, I don't actually think that that's a *good* interpretation, based on what people usually *mean* by "win it".

Cue blackshoe's "if you say that, you deserve what you get for infracting in the first place, even if there is an official, Law-level interpretation for this particular kind of infraction". I don't disagree with him...

[weejonnie]

There is a fair amount of overlap: perhaps an addition to law 46B should be added.

46B6) After a call described in 46B1a), b) or c) is made and dummy does not contain a card in the suit led then dummy must advise the declarer that there is no card of the suit led in dummy, and law 46B4 applies.

[weejonnie]

mycroft, on 2017-February-23, 10:41, said:

This is "in discussion", with AdamW saying that it will likely be interpreted as "lowest card higher than so far played". So, SB would be doing what was correct, but woe betide him when he puts up the A felling the 9.

Having said that, I don't actually think that that's a *good* interpretation, based on what people usually *mean* by "win it".

Cue blackshoe's "if you say that, you deserve what you get for infracting in the first place, even if there is an official, Law-level interpretation for this particular kind of infraction". I don't disagree with him...

Part of declarer's claim.

Dummy holds "AKQ4" of diamonds - declarer a singleton 2.

"I will lead a diamond and win it in dummy." - Declarer's LHO cunningly covers the 2 with the 3. Does that force declarer to play the 4?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-February-23, 10:37, said:

Lamford, have you joined the Yahoo group to discuss the new laws? If not, why not? You spend an awful amount of time finding these loopholes, presumably with the objective of improving the Laws, why not participate in the process directly? I'm getting tired of forwarding links to these threads to the ACBL LC.

One Laws forum is enough for me. And I don't spend an awful lot of time finding loopholes. They find me. I think my advice to the Laws compilers would be:
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.” ― Salvador Dalí

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2017-February-23, 10:41, said:

Having said that, I don't actually think that that's a *good* interpretation, based on what people usually *mean* by "win it"..

The obvious correction, and it beggars belief that the lawmakers could be so incompetent as not to think of it is
46B1(b) If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit led that will win the trick if dummy is last to play; otherwise dummy has to play the highest card of the suit led.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2017-February-23, 10:54, said:

Part of declarer's claim.

Dummy holds "AKQ4" of diamonds - declarer a singleton 2.

"I will lead a diamond and win it in dummy." - Declarer's LHO cunningly covers the 2 with the 3. Does that force declarer to play the 4?

No, because that would be deemed worse than careless, and declarer survives. He can only be given the worst careless line.

[Vampyr]

Of course the trouble with "is known" is that it doesn't answer the crucial question: known to whom? Known to declarer, to dummy, the opponents, to the people at the next table who just plaued the board? Known to God?

I honestly can't see how something like this got past the Drafting Committee.

I had really hoped that one of the changes in the new laws would be the elimination of the passive voice. Why is "card" the subject of this clause? The important aspect is that a person knows the card to be a winner.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2017-February-23, 11:15, said:

No, because that would be deemed worse than careless, and declarer survives. He can only be given the worst careless line.

Why? The card is winning so far.

An interesting gambit when there is a two-way finesse:

"Win"

Dummy plays the J fro KJ. It is winning so far.

Q appears. Declarer: "I said 'win'". Dummy's card changed to K.

Anywat, I think that when Dummy is not last to play, "win" should mean the highest card in the suit. This should apply even if the next player has already shown out. Dummy cannot assume what declarer "knows".

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2017-February-23, 10:41, said:

So, SB would be doing what was correct, but woe betide him when he puts up the A felling the 9.

Not so. The very next board was the following (I have not bothered changing the vulnerability and dealer):

---

Again, a top club was led and again declarer played two rounds of each major. Now when declarer led a diamond and West again played the six, and RR again hummed and harred and said "Win it", SB correctly played the ace, which was the lowest card which is "known" to win the trick (as East is known to be 6-6-1-0). RR protested that he had not decided yet, but when the king fell, he had little difficulty in making his contract. He was slightly worried however that he might have been Grosvenored by TT with KJ doubleton of diamonds, but after much thought he decided that was unlikely.

The opponents were unhappy that SB was humming the lyrics of the Hot Chocolate song "Everyone's a Winner".

[axman]

lamford, on 2017-February-23, 11:04, said:

The obvious correction, and it beggars belief that the lawmakers could be so incompetent as not to think of it is
46B1(b) If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit led that will win the trick if dummy is last to play; otherwise dummy has to play the highest card of the suit led.

It does not beggar my belief. I will point out that euphemisms are dangerous things. And it behooves anyone that seeks to legislate what they mean.... to legislate exactly one meaning. I can imagine you have given this effort quite some time, yet, I am having difficulty figuring out which particular card is specified when dummy has no card of the suit led.

[barmar]

It should be noted that this problem isn't really related to the new law. The only change to 46B1b is the addition of the words "of the suit led", which basically means that this can't be interpreted as telling dummy to ruff. When dummy is able to follow suit, there's no difference from the 2007 version.

[mycroft]

note that claims are a totally different law from "incomplete designation of card", and are ruled on completely differently. So, AKQ4 as part of a claim sidetrack does not apply.

[barmar]

The wording in the 2007 law also isn't really much different in clarity from the 1997 version: "if he directs dummy to win the trick, he is deemed to have called the lowest winning card".

Anyway, I forwarded a link to this thread to the ACBL LC. But given that it hasn't been considered a problem for decades, I doubt they'll change it in the couple of weeks remaining until they have to ratify the new version.

[manudude03]

It seems it would just be so much easier if "win it" means to play the highest card available. Besides, in the OP, the SB might have obtained a full count if he was playing it, but how does he know declarer isn't 4333 rather than 3343 and as such East might have a stiff diamond?

As such, I would say -1 in the OP and making in the second example, both cases with a PP.

[mr1303]

I know some people find the SB threads annoying, but I look out for them especially, even if I don't usually post in them.