[jillybean]

I had a very nice game at the Vancouver Bridge Club today and (brag following) came 3rd in A with 54.63

One hand where I was declarer I led a ♣ to xx on the table. Rho followed and I said ‘club’ while pointing up, intending my partner to play top of xx. My lho said as soon as I said ‘club’ my partner must play the lowest card, thus setting the contract. I was lucky and our opps let me play the top card, they were quite within their rights to make me play the lower and set the contract.

This makes me wonder what short cuts are permissible when declarer is calling cards from dummy,
‘top’ or ‘high’ is deemed as calling the highest card, ‘low’ or simply ‘club’ is calling the lowest. ‘Win the trick’ is deemed to be calling the lowest winning card.

Another time I was playing nt and asked my partner to ‘run the clubs’ intending the suit to be run from the top but perhaps this is incorrect and not having designated rank would have to play them from lowest card?
It doesn't pay to get too blasé!

[rogerclee]

Club-level lawyering is really funny to me. Call the director whenever these kinds of people try to intimidate you into giving up tricks that belong to you.

[matmat]

cover.

[blackshoe]

jillybean2, on Jul 27 2008, 08:52 PM, said:

I had a very nice game at the Vancouver Bridge Club today and (brag following) came 3rd in A with 54.63

Well done!

Quote

One hand where I was declarer I led a ♣  to xx on the table. Rho followed and I said ‘club’ while pointing up, intending my partner to play top of xx.  My lho said as soon as I said ‘club’ my partner must play the lowest card, thus setting the contract.  I was lucky and our opps let me play the top card, they were quite within their rights to make me play the lower and set the contract.

No they weren't. They were within their rights to call the director and ask for a ruling, but that's it.

Quote

This makes me wonder what short cuts are permissible when declarer is calling cards from dummy,

That's easy.

Quote

LAW 46 – INCOMPLETE OR ERRONEOUS CALL OF A CARD FROM DUMMY

A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card

When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state
both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

B. 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):

1. {a} If declarer in playing from dummy calls ‘high’, or words of like
meaning, he is deemed to have called the highest card. 

  {b} If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick he is deemed to have called
the lowest card that it is known will win the trick.

  {c} If he calls ‘low’, or words of like meaning, he is deemed to have
called the lowest card.

2. If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called
the lowest card of the suit indicated.

3. If declarer designates a rank but not a suit

  {a} In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which
dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated
rank in that suit.

  {b} In all other cases declarer must play a card from dummy of the
designated rank if he can legally do so; but if there are two or more such
cards that can be legally played declarer must designate which is intended.

4. If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and
declarer may designate any legal card.

5. If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank
(as by saying ‘play anything’ or words of like meaning) either defender may
designate the play from dummy.

Quote

Another time I was playing nt and asked my partner to ‘run the clubs’ intending the suit to be run from the top but perhaps this is incorrect and not having designated rank would have to play them from lowest card?

"Run the clubs" means run them from the top. The problem comes when halfway through running them, you change your mind. Some people will object, but you're allowed to do that.

Best though is to name each card individually by suit and rank, as Law 46A requires. It's not a hard habit to get into.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on Jul 27 2008, 09:32 PM, said:

Quote

One hand where I was declarer I led a ♣  to xx on the table. Rho followed and I said ‘club’ while pointing up, intending my partner to play top of xx.  My lho said as soon as I said ‘club’ my partner must play the lowest card, thus setting the contract.   I was lucky and our opps let me play the top card, they were quite within their rights to make me play the lower and set the contract.

No they weren't. They were within their rights to call the director and ask for a ruling, but that's it.

True and if they had called the director the correct ruling is? 46B2 If declarer designates a suit but not a rank she is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated.

[Rossoneri]

Yes, I think that is the correct ruling.

[matmat]

blackshoe, on Jul 27 2008, 11:32 PM, said:

4. If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and
declarer may designate any legal card.

you know
this is just ripe for exploitation against a slightly overeager RHO.

[jillybean]

rogerclee, on Jul 27 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

Club-level lawyering is really funny to me. Call the director whenever these kinds of people try to intimidate you into giving up tricks that belong to you.

Rather than intimidating me, they were doing me a favor had they called the director I would have lost the trick. It was all very civil.

[rogerclee]

jillybean2, on Jul 27 2008, 10:00 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Jul 27 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

Club-level lawyering is really funny to me. Call the director whenever these kinds of people try to intimidate you into giving up tricks that belong to you.

Rather than intimidating me, they were doing me a favor had they called the director I would have lost the trick. It was all very civil.

It seems from your original post that you very clearly designated that you wanted the high club, even though you verbally said "club." If this is true, there is no way any reasonable unbiased director would rule against you.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on Jul 27 2008, 09:32 PM, said:

"Run the clubs" means run them from the top. The problem comes when halfway through running them, you change your mind. Some people will object, but you're allowed to do that.

Which law allows this?

blackshoe, on Jul 27 2008, 09:32 PM, said:

Well done!

Thanks

[blackshoe]

jillybean2, on Jul 28 2008, 12:03 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 27 2008, 09:32 PM, said:

"Run the clubs" means run them from the top. The problem comes when halfway through running them, you change your mind. Some people will object, but you're allowed to do that.

Which law allows this?

45B.

If you really want to get picky, no law allows "run the clubs", since you can only play a card at your turn, and it ain't your turn to play to all the future tricks yet.

I agree with Roger. I would rule you called for a top club. "Designates" include gestures.

[Cascade]

I am not convinced.

designate (www.dictionary.com)

1. to mark or point out; indicate; show; specify.
2. to denote; indicate; signify.
3. to name; entitle; style.
4. to nominate or select for a duty, office, purpose, etc.; appoint; assign.

I think pointing up designates a rank.

Nevertheless it would be much better to clearly state both the suit and rank as you "should".

[jillybean]

Oh ok, perhaps they were just trying to intimidate the newbie then.

[EricK]

jillybean2, on Jul 28 2008, 05:50 AM, said:

Oh ok, perhaps they were just trying to intimidate the newbie then.

Were they trying to intimidate you or just helpfully pointing out the rules in case you found yourself up against a nitpicking pair later in the evening?

[mycroft]

That's why you call the TD - and if the opponents start with "we could call the director on that but..." or "we could force you to do <x> but...", *you* call the TD. One of three things happen:

- They're right, the TD explains the rule to you, rules, and gives you the way to avoid it in the future;
- they're wrong, the TD rules correctly in your favour, and explains what the ruling actually is;
- they're trying to intimidate, the TD rules either way, and keeps the note for the next time.

Yes, you might get a zero when the opponents were going to "be nice", but this way you know. And if you don't call in case 2, then *you* learn this thing that happens to be wrong, and propagate it to your newbies; if you don't call in 3, then they keep doing this to others, which can drive people from the game, and either you leave or you learn this is proper behaviour, and *you* start driving people from the game.

Plus, I bet the atmosphere at the table ended up more heated than it would have if all the frustration was aimed at the TD.

Ruling? I would have said that "club", while clearly pointing up, is "incontrovertible" within the meaning of the Law, high club is played. And I'm *brutal*, when it comes to "called card" rulings, as the ACBL Laws Commission require me to be (in the case of claimed "inadvertent call from dummy", the burden of proof is on declarer, and the standard of proof is "overwhelming". In the case where dummy pulled the low one, and you then said "no, top club", we'd be in that case, so I consider them equivalent).

I would also mention that "up" or "high" or "cover" or the like is, perhaps, a less dangerous word to use...

[jillybean]

I don't doubt you in the least or the others who have replied here but to call the TD on perhaps my own infraction?

On other occasions I have called the TD after “my” (according to the ops) infractions. The reaction I have had has been either been laughter or a warning from my partner afterwards that this is not done, it must be the opponents who call the TD.


Ok, I know this is &&*&^^, I’m just trying not be too unpopular at the club.

In this case if the opps had insisted I play low I would have called the TD

How about my partners infraction, if the opponents are aware of it and start to make their own ruling is it ok for me to call the TD?

If the opps dont notice it there's no onus on me to point it out, correct?

[Cascade]

jillybean2, on Jul 29 2008, 12:59 PM, said:

I don't doubt you in the least or the others who have replied here but to call the TD on perhaps my own infraction?

On other occasions I have called the TD after “my” (according to the ops) infractions. The reaction I have had has been either been laughter or a warning from my partner afterwards that this is not done, it must be the opponents who call the TD.


Ok, I know this is &&*&^^, I’m just trying not be too unpopular at the club.

In this case if the opps had insisted I play low I would have called the TD

How about my partners infraction, if the opponents are aware of it and start to make their own ruling is it ok for me to call the TD?

If the opps dont notice it there's no onus on me to point it out, correct?

Law 9B1b

"Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention
has been drawn to an irregularity."

[barmar]

Cascade, on Jul 28 2008, 01:23 AM, said:

I think pointing up designates a rank.

More specifically, the Law says "or words of like meaning." While a gesture isn't technically a word, I would claim that it falls within the intent of the Law and would be considered to be of like meaning.

[david_c]

Cascade, on Jul 28 2008, 06:23 AM, said:

I think pointing up designates a rank.

Interesting - I'm not sure about that. But in any case, the Law says "except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible", and it is incontrovertible that if declarer is pointing up then (s)he is not calling for the small one.

[jillybean]

Thanks for the replies, I have to be especially careful to avoid these errors when playing live.
I wonder how a ruling would have gone at the club.