[bluejak]

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".

It did not come from a TD course.

Yes, of course I have.

Lots of things we discuss on these forums are rare. That does not mean they do not happen.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-September-26, 07:06, said:

It did not come from a TD course.
[...]

When I first received this "problem" it was with the following message:

Quote

Sven,

No doubt that you remember the problem below from an EBL Tournament Directors Course as an example concerning declarer’s incontrovertible intention.

♣KJ6
____
[___]

♠ 6
♣73

Declarer (South) is in 4♠ and has already won 8 tricks, the last one in his hand. ♣A and ♣Q have not been played yet, while there are 5 outstanding clubs with the defenders. Declarer continues with a small club from his hand and West contributes the ♣8. Declarer now thinks for a while, shrugs his shoulders and says: ´I don’t know, play one´. The defenders ask the TD to apply B5, giving them the choice of card to be played from dummy, which, obviously, will be ♣6. That is not a reasonable ruling. It is completely obvious that South is going to play either ♣J or ♣K to fulfil his contract. So that should be the choice the TD should offer to the defenders.

In the Netherlands we changed the above a little and now we have a new problem that divided the directors having two different interpretations of Law 46B.

♣KJ
____
[___]

♠ 6
♣73

Same play, declarer thinks for a long while and says to dummy: “I don’t know, play one, your choice”.
(The rest omitted by me as irrelevant)

We may have had different correspondents, but this at least should document that an origin indeed has been a TD Course?

[bluejak]

If you read that document, the first problem was from the course, and the second problem was from a Netherlands TD discussion. That is what it says.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-September-26, 16:23, said:

If you read that document, the first problem was from the course, and the second problem was from a Netherlands TD discussion. That is what it says.

Precisely!
They took a problem from a TD course and made a slight modification. The "problem" still originated from that course.

[bluejak]

Exactly: the problem was not from that course as you have indicated so well. A totally different problem was on that course - ok, let's be frank, lots of totally different problems were.

[barmar]

But my point is still valid -- it was a hypothetical, not a TD asking how he should have ruled in a real case.

But I'll admit that the TD course could have gotten its idea to include the problem because something like it came up in actual play.

[bluejak]

Of course it is hypothetical, I never suggested otherwise.