[bluejak]

I know there was an earlier question with KJ6 in the dummy. But my correspondent has been discussing with other Dutch TDs a follow-up question which does not have KJ6 in the dummy but has KJ in the dummy and that is the question being asked here. He has asked me for an opinion on the question as cited and not as a different question.

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2011-September-23, 12:29, said:

I know there was an earlier question with KJ6 in the dummy. But my correspondent has been discussing with other Dutch TDs a follow-up question which does not have KJ6 in the dummy but has KJ in the dummy and that is the question being asked here. He has asked me for an opinion on the question as cited and not as a different question.

I have had both variants, from probably the same correspondent, but as I wrote here: With Clubs as the suit in question, not Spades nor Diamonds. Not that this really matters at all.

[billw55]

This is the kind of thread that makes me glad I'm not a TD. And probably other players too

To me the ruling is absolutely obvious: two tricks to the defense, retain deposit if appealed, and pp to declarer if he bugs me about it. I wouldn't even think a law citation is necessary.

But I guess TDs aren't allowed to do that kind of thing.

[aguahombre]

 billw55, on 2011-September-23, 14:50, said:

This is the kind of thread that makes me glad I'm not a TD. And probably other players too

To me the ruling is absolutely obvious: two tricks to the defense, retain deposit if appealed, and pp to declarer if he bugs me about it. I wouldn't even think a law citation is necessary.

But I guess TDs aren't allowed to do that kind of thing.

Almost. I would allow the opponent to choose; and if he is dumb enough to choose wrong, give the declarer his trick

[sfi]

 iviehoff, on 2011-September-23, 07:37, said:

I think you are reading things into both formulations of word that aren't necessarily there. Just because one is rapid in devolving responsibility for choice, or describes the choices as "anything", doesn't mean that all options are equivalent. Just because one is slow or indecisive in choosing, or uses the word "choice", doesn't mean there is any practical difference. In myth, Buridan's ass starved because it was slow to choose between two equally attractive sources of food.

And even if one can deduce reasons for declarer's indecisiveness from his wording, it just doesn't seem relevant. It seems clear to me that the essence of 46B5 is that declarer is instructing someone else to choose, nothing else.

And I think you're playing unnecessary word games when the law is quite clear that it refers to intention. But when people start arguing over subtleties in the dictionary I tend to lose interest.

Basically, you are going to rule in a way that reduces declarer's chance from 50% to 0%, when declarer has actually demonstrated that he knows it's a 50% guess. Law 46B5 is for when declarer demonstrates that he believes that the choice of card is irrelevant. This is contrary to the intention stated in the introduction to the laws (and yes, I know the word "primarily" is in there and that the introduction has no force of law), and is simply not needed.

[gnasher]

gnasher said:

But I don't think "play anything" implies a deliberate choice.

 iviehoff, on 2011-September-23, 10:33, said:

Which I never said. What I said was, that it implied precisely nothing about how the player should act to select a card.

OK, so if "play one, your choice" implies a deliberate choice, and "play anything" does not, their meanings are different.

Quote

You also seemed to agree that "choose one" does not imply a deliberate choice either. He only said "choose", not what kind of a choice.

I don't know when you think I implied that, but I certanly didn't intend to say that.

Quote

I'm delighted you had a high quality dictionary to hand and confirmed our advice that choose can mean "make a selection".

Er no, what I quoted tells us that a meaning of "choose" is "make a selection; exercise choice (between, from)".
Each numbered item in a dictionary entry constitutes a single meaning. Or it does in my dictionary, anyway.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2011-September-23, 13:41, said:

I have had both variants, from probably the same correspondent, but as I wrote here: With Clubs as the suit in question, not Spades nor Diamonds. Not that this really matters at all.

What about Barry Crane's rule (the queen is over the jack in minors, under it in majors)? Or is that only applicable to 2-way finesses?

[blackshoe]

This has got to be one of the silliest threads we've had in here — and a prime example of the kind of "blml" BS we try to avoid. I'm tempted to lock the thread, but you guys seem to be having fun with it, so I won't. I might later.

[barmar]

Maybe we should start a thread in the Changing Laws forum. Wouldn't it be nice and simple if the law said that in the case where declarer says something to this effect, dummy shall play the lowest card in the suit that was led, or in the lowest ranking suit if he cannot follow suit?

But I think the intent of 46B5 is pretty obvious: if declarer doesn't want to make a decision, the opponents are allowed to. Dummy is explicitly prohibited from making decisions for declarer.

Most of the time when declarer says "play anything", it really doesn't matter -- dummy is dead. Even though 46B5 says that an opponent should select the card, they don't bother because they can also see that it doesn't matter. But the purpose of that clause in 46B5 is to handle the case where declarer makes a mistake -- he thinks it doesn't matter, but it does. The opponents are permitted to take advantage of this and get the best result.

This also reinforces the law that dummy can't participate. Suppose dummy ALSO realizes that declarer made a mistake, and knows which card is best -- he's not allowed to exercise that judgement.

Now, the case in this thread is not quite like the usual "play anything" situation. It's not "it doesn't matter", it's "I have no way of knowing." But again, the obvious intent of 46B5 is that if declarer gives up his right to make the decision, it goes to the defenders.

[campboy]

 gnasher, on 2011-September-23, 09:54, said:

Indeed. Personally I'm quite comfortable with the idea that I speak the language of the OED rather than that of your Scrabble Word Book. I'm also unsurprised to learn that I speak better English than the average Internet-user.

My point was that in general parlance it is demonstrably not abnormal to use "choice" in the sense of "free selection by any manner", so it is hardly incontrovertible that declarer meant something else.

[bluejak]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-23, 16:06, said:

This has got to be one of the silliest threads we've had in here — and a prime example of the kind of "blml" BS we try to avoid. I'm tempted to lock the thread, but you guys seem to be having fun with it, so I won't. I might later.

About one in four or five posts has some value so let us let it roll.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-23, 16:06, said:

This has got to be one of the silliest threads we've had in here — and a prime example of the kind of "blml" BS we try to avoid. I'm tempted to lock the thread, but you guys seem to be having fun with it, so I won't. I might later.

That partly results from the nature of the question and the way it was phrased. If you pose a question about the interpretation of a law, and that law demands interpretation of a player's language, it's hard to avoid a discussion of language.

[gnasher]

Suppose, insteead, that the question had been the arguably more on-topic one of "This occurred; how would you rule?"

One can't be certain without hearing what the players have to say, but it seems very likely that what actually happened is that declarer made a jocular comment which, although phrased as an instruction to dummy, was not intended to be acted upon. Then an opponent (who may possibly play at Lamford's club) asked for a ruling under Law 46B. What should the director do?

It seems to me that to allow the defenders to choose dummy's cards in this situation would be iniquitous, would not be supported by the majority of players, and would tend to bring the laws into disrepute. Hence the director seek a way to avoid ruling in that way. If necessary, he can justify this by explaining that the rules have to be interpeted in a way that makes the game playable, and that his interpretation is generally accepted as the correct one.

The director has been given two ways to arrive at a ruling that gives a sensible outcome: accept that the declarer's different intention was incontrovertible; or accept that declarer's words mean what they appear to mean, and that this places them outside the scope of Law 46B5. I think he should use one of these, but I don't much care which one he chooses (or, indeed, whether he chooses not to choose, and instead tosses a coin).

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2011-September-24, 02:00, said:

Suppose, insteead, that the question had been the arguably more on-topic one of "This occurred; how would you rule?"

One can't be certain without hearing what the players have to say, but it seems very likely that what actually happened is that declarer made a jocular comment which, although phrased as an instruction to dummy, was not intended to be acted upon. Then an opponent (who may possibly play at Lamford's club) asked for a ruling under Law 46B. What should the director do?

It seems to me that to allow the defenders to choose dummy's cards in this situation would be iniquitous, would not be supported by the majority of players, and would tend to bring the laws into disrepute. Hence the director seek a way to avoid ruling in that way. If necessary, he can justify this by explaining that the rules have to be interpeted in a way that makes the game playable, and that his interpretation is generally accepted as the correct one.

The director has been given two ways to arrive at a ruling that gives a sensible outcome: accept that the declarer's different intention was incontrovertible; or accept that declarer's words mean what they appear to mean, and that this places them outside the scope of Law 46B5. I think he should use one of these, but I don't much care which one he chooses (or, indeed, whether he chooses not to choose, and instead tosses a coin).

If Director takes declarer's remark as a joke he will simply ask him to call a card in the proper manner.

Otherwise (as most here seem to agree) he will apply Law 46B5 and let either defender decide which card to be played from dummy (with no other restriction than that it must be a card in the suit led - even when dummy has KJx in the suit)

[barmar]

This came from a director's course, and it seems like a hypothetical that could only happen there. Declarers know that making this guess is their job, not one they can hand off, and no real player would ever do something like this.

Can anyone ever recall a declarer making a "play anything" designation in a situation where it actually made a difference what was played from dummy? The closest I've come is saying something like "Play anything except the heart ace".

[gordontd]

 gnasher, on 2011-September-24, 02:00, said:

If necessary, he can justify this by explaining that the rules have to be interpeted in a way that makes the game playable, and that his interpretation is generally accepted as the correct one.

Except that this thread suggests it isn't.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2011-September-24, 22:25, said:

This came from a director's course, and it seems like a hypothetical that could only happen there. Declarers know that making this guess is their job, not one they can hand off, and no real player would ever do something like this.

Can anyone ever recall a declarer making a "play anything" designation in a situation where it actually made a difference what was played from dummy? The closest I've come is saying something like "Play anything except the heart ace".

You would (apparently) be surprised over what has indeed happened in real life.

[gnasher]

 pran, on 2011-September-25, 02:54, said:

You would (apparently) be surprised over what has indeed happened in real life.

Can you provide a link to the details, or a description (perhaps in another thread, to keep the moderators at bay)?

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2011-September-25, 04:43, said:

 pran, on 2011-September-25, 02:54, said:

You would (apparently) be surprised over what has indeed happened in real life.

Can you provide a link to the details, or a description (perhaps in another thread, to keep the moderators at bay)?

No, I am referring to my own experience from more than 30 years of directing, and I am pretty sure that other (experienced) directors have had their share of similar situations.

[iviehoff]

 barmar, on 2011-September-24, 22:25, said:

Can anyone ever recall a declarer making a "play anything" designation in a situation where it actually made a difference what was played from dummy?

Oh, yes. I recall exercising my right to choose a card from dummy, where it mattered, a few times. There are two possible reasons for this. One, declarer has been mistaken in thinking it doesn't matter. On another occasion, declarer simply no longer cared: he was of the opinion he was already getting a bottom, and now didn't care very much how many extra he went down. In other words, these ended up being similar to mistaken concessions of a number of tricks.