[mycroft]

"17 rules". Current regulations, that's 100 pages, with smaller type than the Bridge Laws. If Law 1 was "the field of play" the way "Rule 1" is, it would encompass at least Laws 1-8. Law 17 is "the corner kick". That's equivalent to "The revoke", so that's L61-64, or "Claims", 68-71.

This is the same thing as "literary SF" with 6, 50-page chapters and more "action SF" with 50 6-page chapters. Obviously the 50-chapter book is longer and more complicated.

And anybody who compares bridge regulation with Golf - ha ha ha. The only game where the television broadcast has a "rule of the day" segment, because it's so easy for everyone to understand. (and I checked the Canadian Rules. Not only do they have a "player-friendly version" and an "official guide", the "34 rules" are *200* pages of very tight text (okay, maybe 180 pages. It also includes a bunch of advertisements for Rolex before the rules start, didn't check to see if there are interstitial ads).

[jillybean]

pran, on 2021-June-03, 09:35, said:

Well, I would say that unless the condition 'except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible' applies we have
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.

That would only apply when discarding or leading from dummy, not when playing to a trick in progress, when "play" or "top" etc are used.

[pran]

pran, on 2021-June-03, 09:35, said:

Well, I would say that unless the condition 'except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible' applies we have
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.

jillybean, on 2021-June-03, 14:19, said:

That would only apply when discarding or leading from dummy, not when playing to a trick in progress, when "play" or "top" etc are used.

Rubbish.
'Play' indicates any of the available cards in the appropriate suit so your comment is only relevant when Dummy has just one such available card.

(And in that case declarer's intention is definitely incontrovertible!)

[jillybean]

pran, on 2021-June-04, 02:02, said:

Rubbish.
'Play' indicates any of the available cards in the appropriate suit so your comment is only relevant when Dummy has just one such available card.

(And in that case declarer's intention is definitely incontrovertible!)

46
B. Incomplete or Invalid Designation
In the case of an incomplete or invalid designation, the following restrictions apply (except when
declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):

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

46 B.2 must apply when a suit had been led and declarer calls 'play'. The 'suit' is assumed by default, declarer cannot play any other suit.


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.

46 B 5 applies when dummy cannot follow suit and declarer, as they do, directs dummy to "play anything" or "anything" ("play")

[pran]

jillybean, on 2021-June-04, 02:58, said:

46
B. Incomplete or Invalid Designation
In the case of an incomplete or invalid designation, the following restrictions apply (except when
declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):

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

46 B.2 must apply when a suit had been led and declarer calls 'play'. The 'suit' is assumed by default, declarer cannot play any other suit.


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.

46 B 5 applies when dummy cannot follow suit and declarer, as they do, directs dummy to "play anything" or "anything" ("play")

Sure, and what is the point?

[sanst]

The Dutch Bridge Union has published a 40 page guide for players. It’s mostly about how to play and bid, and what to do when there’s an infraction. The role of the TD is explained and there are examples to illustrate the text. Quite useful, but too many have it unread in the bookcase. There’s also a movie, on Youtube, with all the common infractions - no revokes or use of UI - you see at the table. Actually I’ve lost count somewhere in the middle, but at least twenty in just one board. And I’m sure that many players don’t see anything wrong here. Unfortunately it’s in Dutch, unfortunately for those who don’t understand the language that is, because it’s quite funny.
There’s also a guide for TD’s with flow charts about the most common irregularities. Useful for those directors who don’t have followed the full course, and those are in the majority over here. Some don’t have any formal training at all.

[jillybean]

pran, on 2021-June-04, 03:27, said:

Sure, and what is the point?

---

South is playing in 1nt, West leads a small heart, South says "Play"
Which card must dummy play?

[pran]

jillybean, on 2021-June-05, 02:33, said:

---

South is playing in 1nt, West leads a small heart, South says "Play"
Which card must dummy play?

Law 46B5: "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."

Either East or West may designate, but they may not confer,
and he must of course designate a card that can legally be played from dummy, i.e. (any) one of the hearts.

Again - what is the point?

[jillybean]

pran, on 2021-June-05, 03:40, said:

Law 46B5: "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."

Either East or West may designate, but they may not confer,
and he must of course designate a card that can legally be played from dummy, i.e. (any) one of the hearts.

Again - what is the point?

If this is this intent of the law, I have yet to see a Director enforce it.
I don't understand your question, what is the point? The point of the law or the point of declarer calling for a "suit", or "play" ?

[mycroft]

"play" does not mean "play anything" or "words of like meaning". If declarer had meant that, they would have said something like "pick one" (seeing the 987 on the board).

L46B2: "If declarer designates a suit but not a rank, the lowest card of the suit indicated is deemed to have been called".

Declarer has designated a suit by implication - L44C: "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." (my emphasis). Therefore, declarer has called for the ♥4.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-June-05, 08:09, said:

"play" does not mean "play anything" or "words of like meaning". If declarer had meant that, they would have said something like "pick one" (seeing the 987 on the board).

L46B2: "If declarer designates a suit but not a rank, the lowest card of the suit indicated is deemed to have been called".

Declarer has designated a suit by implication - L44C: "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." (my emphasis). Therefore, declarer has called for the ♥4.

Seems logical to me. But the fact that it doesn't occur to pran suggests the law is not well written.

[mycroft]

Well, when you're writing a "here's what you should do. We know nobody does, here's codification of what a large number of 'what is actually done' mean" law, it's hard to be well-written. Hence, interpretations and case law. Just like any other set of rules.

I am guessing that this one is a "native English speaker has a small advantage" situation (note, if my Norwegian (or my Spanish for that matter, to pick a language that matters to my daily life) gets as good as Pran's English, I get to criticize. This is not criticism).

The laws could be written better; definitely the laws commission's plan of action could be better. "Mandatory law review preferably every year, but definitely the year after the new edition comes out" would be a good start.

A reminder, of course, that all of L46B specifics are coloured by "In the case of an incomplete or invalid designation, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible):" And yeah, that's a minefield for regulation, too, and case law and interpretations.

[pran]

pescetom, on 2021-June-05, 08:47, said:

Seems logical to me. But the fact that it doesn't occur to pran suggests the law is not well written.

Oh, I have no problem with such allegations, and I might even agree with a few of them.

But I am also aware of the fact that our laws are the result of extensive and careful committee work involving all the major bridge organisations in the world during the ten or so years between revisions.

Now, if a declarer says 'play' in situations like the one under discussion here I understand that to express such indifference to the play that what he really says is: Play any (legal) card - I don't care.

And that is precisely how Law 46B5 tells us to handle such a statement. (If the play really doesn't matter then OK, otherwise I suggest a look into Law 74)

[axman]

mycroft, on 2021-June-05, 08:09, said:

"play" does not mean "play anything" or "words of like meaning". If declarer had meant that, they would have said something like "pick one" (seeing the 987 on the board).

L46B2: "If declarer designates a suit but not a rank, the lowest card of the suit indicated is deemed to have been called".

Declarer has designated a suit by implication - L44C: "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." (my emphasis). Therefore, declarer has called for the ♥4.

It behooves rule makers that there are distinctions to be coped with: the situation is a lead, playing to the lead, and commands to dummy to participate in the play.

When following to a trick, 'play' can be construed in the vein of following suit (as Mycroft pointed out) but when leading, 'play' becomes a command for dummy to participate in the play; similarly, when dummy is void of the suit led, 'play' becomes a command for dummy to participate in the play.

It could be said it is unwise to conflate the distinctions.

My view is that it is not a good idea for declarer to command dummy to participate in the play due to the fact that being declarer's agent he must then do so:
An intentional breach of law which must have disciplinary consequences. My thinking is that the consequence be a penalty** trick from tricks subsequently won on the board.

**When a defender exercises his right to designate dummy's card doing so gives inferences to declarer that might be particularly useful. Hence it is better for a brutal penalty to stamp out commands to participate in the play altogether and not have to worry about penalties.

[blackshoe]

If I had my way, I would change "should" to "shall" in Law 46A, eliminate Law 46B, and issue a PP to any declarer who violates 46A. Most people here will now say it's a good thing I won't get my way here.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2021-June-05, 11:48, said:

If I had my way, I would change "should" to "shall" in Law 46A, eliminate Law 46B, and issue a PP to any declarer who violates 46A. Most people here will now say it's a good thing I won't get my way here.

Don't overlook that Law 46 reflects more than 100 years of traditional terminology.

[mycroft]

I wouldn't say "good", necessarily. But I've mentioned your beloved utopia before.

It's not a good thing this will never happen. It may not be a bad thing either; the number of times this causes an issue even in theory, never mind at the table, is negligible, and there are much more dangerous things to worry about (even more dangerous things to worry about in what the Laws "allow" or "might mean if you read it oddly, but not incorrectly".)

And I'm not slamming your utopia, either - I have my own windmills I tilt at (some of which are even agreed to by people who *could* make a difference, but don't seem to think they need to put their clout behind it directly). This just isn't one of mine, because I don't see where it would improve things enough for me to saddle up.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-June-05, 12:21, said:

I wouldn't say "good", necessarily. But I've mentioned your beloved utopia before.

It's not a good thing this will never happen. It may not be a bad thing either; the number of times this causes an issue even in theory, never mind at the table, is negligible, and there are much more dangerous things to worry about (even more dangerous things to worry about in what the Laws "allow" or "might mean if you read it oddly, but not incorrectly".)

And I'm not slamming your utopia, either - I have my own windmills I tilt at (some of which are even agreed to by people who *could* make a difference, but don't seem to think they need to put their clout behind it directly). This just isn't one of mine, because I don't see where it would improve things enough for me to saddle up.

I would certainly prefer that utopia to the present innocuous mess, although I agree with you that it is neither a particularly good solution nor anywhere near the top of my list of law problems.
I don't agree that the problem is in readers who lack native English: the law ignores the obvious contextual framework suggested by axman and was clearly never reviewed by anyone asking simple basic questions like jillybean does.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2021-June-03, 07:11, said:

"Play" is fine, once you establish that people intend it to mean the same as "low". Unfortunately, the obvious meaning, to many people, without that understanding, is "play anything".

Yes, fine, except for super annoying. I would quit the game if I had to contend with this. And I do not understand why it does not mean play anything.

[blackshoe]

Oh, that's one's easy, Vampyr. It doesn't mean "play anything" because when the director is called, the declarer insists she doesn't mean "play anything", she means "play low". One might point out to the director that this insistence doesn't make the declarer's different (to "play anything" intent incontrovertible, but the director will sigh happily, glad he has an excuse not to annoy declarer with an adverse ruling, and there you go. The fact that the defenders will be annoyed by the director's ruling somehow never crosses the director's mind.