Law 45C4(b) again - calling "small" or "play" on lead from dummy
#1
Posted 2019-December-12, 19:17
At Trick 10, opening leader shifts to diamonds and declaarer calls for dummy's ace with dummy holding
♠----
♥6
♦A76
♣----
The ♥6 is a winner. The ♦6 and♦7 are losers.
After winning the ace in dummy, declarer says "small" or "play". Declarer's RHO plays a diamond and then I am called to the table, since declarer's intent was for the heart winner to be played, not a diamond loser.
Assume declarer did not play to the trick, otherwise you cannot allow a correction for any reason.
Law 463B(a) which says "in leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit with which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit", indicating saying "small" or "play" means the suit (diamonds) that won the trick is the suit to be led. Does 45C4(b) override this, allowing declarer to change dummy's card from the diamond loser to the heart winner?
(In this case, playing one of the small diamonds would be clearly non-sensical.)
#2
Posted 2019-December-12, 20:18
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#3
Posted 2019-December-13, 02:32
#4
Posted 2019-December-13, 03:18
If in the last previous tricks he had run winning hearts from his own hand and had one more heart in Dummy which he could only reach by entering Dummy with the ♦A.
Even then I would probably rule carelessness if he failed to somehow explicitly specify that he entered Dummy for the sole purpose of cashing his last heart.
Edit: After looking at the link I find that there is no way this can be the situation, so the play of a diamond stands.
But I find this statement in OP very confusing: At Trick 10, opening leader shifts to diamonds and calls for dummy's ace with dummy holding
"opening leader ..... calls for dummy's ace"?
#5
Posted 2019-December-13, 07:45
However, it is entirely possible that what was in declarer's mind the whole time was to cash the heart and "small" slipped out inadvertently, or declarer said "small" intending it to refer to the heart, so I would try to find out the precise order and speed of events, when and how declarer reacted when they realised the diamond had been played, and allow declarer to change the card if I am convinced their other intention was incontrovertible.
#6
Posted 2019-December-13, 08:37
VixTD, on 2019-December-13, 07:45, said:
However, it is entirely possible that what was in declarer's mind the whole time was to cash the heart and "small" slipped out inadvertently, or declarer said "small" intending it to refer to the heart, so I would try to find out the precise order and speed of events, when and how declarer reacted when they realised the diamond had been played, and allow declarer to change the card if I am convinced their other intention was incontrovertible.
True, but Law 45C says "A change of designation may be allowed after a slip of the tongue, but not after a loss of concentration or a reconsideration of action." Calling "spade" (having none) instead of "heart" would be a slip of the tongue, but calling "small" when intending to play the only card in a different suit arguably denotes a loss of concentration, even if related more to the form of words than the intended action.
There is also a real possibility that declarer had forgotten the heart was a winner and only woke up when the opponent hurriedly played to diamonds or dummy grimaced - I don't see how director will be able to find out. Even if he had gone to dummy purposely to cash the last heart, as pran discussed, there is a possibility he forgot that when playing the Ace of diamonds or had a sudden panic that he had miscounted (hands up those who never had a dumb blackout during declarer play).
#8
Posted 2019-December-13, 10:03
So the only possibility is 45C4(b), considering this to be a slip of the tongue. Although the phrase "same breath" no longer appears in the Laws (I'm not sure if it ever did, but was just in RA guidelines), that's usually the best test for this -- if declarer says something like "small ... I mean heart" I would allow it (in practice, the opponents usually accept this type of correction without even calling the TD).
Without evidence of such an attempt to correct immediately, I'd consider this to be a careless slip of the mind, not an unintended designation, so the correction is disallowed.
#9
Posted 2019-December-13, 13:48
pran, on 2019-December-13, 03:18, said:
"opening leader ..... calls for dummy's ace"?
Corrected: "At Trick 10, opening leader shifts to diamonds and DECLARER calls for dummy's ace with dummy holding.."
#10
Posted 2019-December-13, 13:58
But I deliberately left that other part out. I wanted to know the opinion without the aspect of the mishearing what was spoken.
It appears to me the cases where dummy is leading to a trick are far less likely to allow Law 45C4(b) than other cases, and that declarer leading and dummy playing third to the trick are by far the most common cases where application of 45C4(b) is allowed.
#11
Posted 2019-December-13, 14:44
BudH, on 2019-December-13, 13:58, said:
But I deliberately left that other part out. I wanted to know the opinion without the aspect of the mishearing what was spoken.
It appears to me the cases where dummy is leading to a trick are far less likely to allow Law 45C4(b) than other cases, and that declarer leading and dummy playing third to the trick are by far the most common cases where application of 45C4(b) is allowed.
Well, you left out all the important facts - which indeed completely changed the situation.
End of story
#12
Posted 2019-December-16, 10:54
#13
Posted 2019-December-16, 11:55
"Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card" Law 45B
"When calling for a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card." Law 46A
"The Cards of each suit rank downward in the order Ace, King, Queen, Jack, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2. " Law 1A
Playing of a card by saying "small heart" or "small" etc is a variation from the proper procedure.
Law 46B is about resolving ambiguities when there has been an incomplete designation by declarer.
If there was a problem caused by an improper designation then there is a case for penalising declarer not following Law 46A.
I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon
#14
Posted 2019-December-16, 14:30
Cascade, on 2019-December-16, 11:55, said:
Yes, there is. But it would not go over well.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#15
Posted 2019-December-22, 18:57
"It was noisy, and almost nobody calls 'small' from dummy when leading. The balance of probabilities is that declarer did say what he claimed, and you heard only the first word."
#16
Posted 2019-December-23, 13:59
#17
Posted 2019-December-23, 21:16
Quote
OTOH, even though "low" doesn't designate a rank, I think most directors would rule that declarer has called for the lowest card of the suit in which dummy won the previous trick. That isn't what the law says, but...
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#18
Posted 2019-December-24, 02:45
blackshoe, on 2019-December-23, 21:16, said:
OTOH, even though "low" doesn't designate a rank, I think most directors would rule that declarer has called for the lowest card of the suit in which dummy won the previous trick. That isn't what the law says, but...
It certainly is what the Laws imply:
Quote
If he calls ‘low’, or words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit led.
...
45B3. If declarer designates a rank but not a suit:
(a) In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit with which the dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit.
#20
Posted 2019-December-24, 06:29
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean