|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
International Bridge Laws ForumIf you need help with the Laws or rulings from |
| To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message. Please specify your country in your query where indicated. Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations. |
| Welcome, Register :: Log in |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 2 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
ne_trepide Reply |
another interesting problem arose at the local bridge club - please give me a ruling or at least an opinion.
opponents had bid diamonds during the auction - and win the auction in 4s. my partner leads the 9d - dummy goes down showing 5 diamonds - i hold 4 diamonds. it is obvious to me my partner has a singleton diamond. we move on - my partner wins a trick and in trying to find an entry to my hand leads a heart - i hold the king and the ace lies on the table. declarer mumbles something, dummy plays small, i rise with the king and declarer plays small. i lead a diamond (the setting trick) and declarer says, "i called for the ace". my partner says i didn't hear what you said, i concur and declarer's partner (dummy) says i thought you said "small". the director is called and hasn't got a clue what to rule so eventually - with the whole room looking at us - i say, "well let's take an average." would you believe we came second on the day losing by 0.24%. it was only a club game and i'm sure the declarer was not lying (not that this is relevant) and like most clubs we are short of quality directors but.... how should it have been ruled? |
bluejak  427 posts Forum Host Reply |
Directors make judgement decisions - they have to. So your Director has to decide for what declarer called. If he decides declarer called for a small card the play stands. If not then Law 45D applies, and the cards get corrected.
|
ne_trepide  14 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
do you think should apply even after declarer has played to the trick?
additionally the first card to the next trick is played. would you not think this dis-advantages the defenders who are totally blameless; surely the play should stand since the declarer has played to the trick. i would agree if declarer had not played. is not the original fault (and therefore subject to penalty) the fact that all parties did not hear what declarer claims to have called and surely in following the declarer accepted the small heart from dummy? |
|
Ed 172 posts Forum Host Reply |
The Law to which David referred, 45D, says "If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw (without penalty) a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it; if declarer's RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick (see Law 16C2)."
Since declarer has not played to the next trick from either his hand or dummy, the low card on the previous trick is withdrawn, and the ace substituted. You may now withdraw your king, and substitute a different heart. If you do so, declarer may withdraw *his* card. The reference to Law 16C2 is to say that the fact that you have the  K and another diamond is UI to declarer; he may not base a subseqent play on that knowledge if he has an LA. (That your partner now knows you have those cards is AI to him.) |
|
John_M,UK Reply |
Isn't the moral of the story to ask for clarification when declarer calls for a card and you didn't hear/understand what card/play was called for? Don't assume dummy got it right.
Wouldn't the position of the QH impact on the TD's decision. If it is in declarers hand then there is no reason to believe that he wasn't trying to run to the QH? If declarer hasn't got the QH then it was a mistake (probably)? Kind regards, John. |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
How would the Director know it was in declarer's hand? Competent directors never look in the hand during the play because they would be scattering unauthorised information around themselves.
Directors just have to make a judgement based on what people say. Furthermore, people make silly mistakes. Directors learn early that because a play is illogical that does not mean a player will not do it! Perhaps a player was thinking of the next trick or something. 
|
|
John_M,UK Reply |
Country: England
 My Mistake.So, if the view is that the director wouldn't look at the hand/s during play and the problem is that declarer's mistake might lead to the contract going off, wouldn't it be reasonable for the director to say something like, Play the Ace and I will return at the end of the hand ~ that way the director would be able to "fully access" the logicality of the claim that the Ace was called for and that the player was NOT resorting to unethical play, by chancing that the lead was away from the KH, with a "get out of jail card" in his deck as well? Obviously the KH was revealed and that impacts on declarers decision making; he now knows that the ace isn't going to catch the king so the Ace can be played "without regret". In this circumstance as a defender I would have said "play the Ace and we will call the director at the end." If declarer then called the director I would suggest that the hand be played out with "declarers correction" so that the "damage and legitimacy of the correction" could be established. Would I be within my rights to ask for that? Would it be reasonable for the TD and declarer to comply? Thanks, John. |
|
John_M,UK Reply |
Country: England
As an after thought. Am I right in thinking that Law 46A puts the onus on Declarer to call for the correct card clearly. As declarer was the only person out of the 4 to assert he called for the Ace, doesn't the spirit of that law mean that any rulings would be inclined to be more favourable to the defenders? And as such the TD has an "obligation" to base a decision on the fullest amount of information possible ~ after the hand has been played? Thanks again, John. |
|
John_M,UK Reply |
Country: England
Second and final afterthought; If the spirit of Law 46A favours the defence and the director deems that an Average should be taken would it be defensible to state this law and give defenders "Average +" and declarer "Average -". Kind regards, John. |
|
ne_trepide 14 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
i do believe the laws of bridge do leave me amazed at times.
surely it is the responsibility of the declarer to ensure dummy plays the nominated card - and do so immediately, or at least before playing to the trick themselves - not 6 played cards later. one responder to this problem said that perhaps declarer was thinking of the next trick and missed dummy's play. that is declarer's problem and it should not be that the defenders pay for the declarer's inattention or distraction. if the declarer mumbles (or whispers) so softly that the 3 others at the table did not apparently hear correctly - don't forget dummy believed "small" was called for; then surely the fault- in every instance - is with declarer. incidentally the heart queen was in the hand of declarer but this fact is really irrelevant since such a play towards the queen opens up the opportunity for the diamond ruff. that is if one assumes declarer realised the 9D was indeed a singleton and not shall we say a doubleton. |
|
John_M,UK Reply |
Country: England
Hi ne_trepide, Sorry for Hi-jacking your thread. The picture I am trying to paint is that declarer Knew the next round of diamonds was going to be ruffed by your partner . So when the heart is led with Ace on table and queen in hand declarer has a decision to make - is the lead away from KH looking for a speculative QH ~ declarer decides that he can afford to lose the KH but can't afford the ruff or to lose the QH. By the KH now being revealed Declarer cries "foul" to avoid the ruff with the reassurance that the KH can't catch his Queen so declarer can now draw trumps instead of the "risky" play of allowing the ruff and finding that it was the bare KH, lol. I'm with you ~ declarer fluffed it whichever way you look at it and the best result that declarer should have got was "Average minus" say 60/40. I am very interested to know what the experts think. Thanks, John. All the best. |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
When you call the Director because of an irregularity he rules as the Laws require. In this case he decides what card was called for from dummy and then bases his ruling on this decision. Why are you suggesting he does something different? TDs are not allowed to ignore the Laws, and it will cause unimaginable trouble if they do. What for, anyway?
The  K is unauthorised information to declarer so if he chooses amongst logical alternatives one suggested by the sight of the K the TD will adjust.
You are not allowed to give rulings at your table, especially wrong rulings.
No. Stick to rulings given by the TD from the law book.
|
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
Either declarer called for the ace, or he did not. The TD has to rule. He cannot ignore the Law: he must make a decision. Of course he will notice that three people say one thing and one another - like everything else he is told he will use that in making his determination. But he cannot wait until the end of the hand to tell them how to proceed now.
He is not giving an average. He is either ruling the ace was played, and giving a ruling under Law 46D, or he is ruling it was not, and letting play continue.
|
|
John_M,UK Reply |
Country: England
Thanks bluejak for the insight. As ne_trepide said, "i do believe the laws of bridge do leave me amazed at times."  So if the TD is to decide if the Ace was called for or not based on what people say how should he rule?; 1 person says he called for the Ace 1 person says he called for "small" 2 people didn't hear what he called for. True you say that either declarer called for the Ace or he didn't ~ so what is the point of Law 46A? Law 46: Incomplete or Erroneous call of 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. So how is the TD supposed to deal with the UI and indeed how are the defenders and declarer supposed to deal with it if they are "not allowed to make rulings at table especially wrong rulins" ~ this implies that should the TD rule that the Ace was called that he should remain at table to "adjust". Yet how is the TD going to be able to fathom "what's what" and how are the defenders going to know exactly what UI declarer is in possession of until the hand is played out.From my "neutral"  perspective, once the TD rules the ACE was called for then declarer is in possession of the following UI;1. The KH is held by his RHO; 1.1 The Ace cannot catch the King. 1.2 The King cannot catch the Queen. 2. RHO holds another diamond; 2.1 The diamond lead was probably a singleton* 3. The RHO holds at least 1 other heart; 3.1 Therefore if a diamond ruff is taken there is no chance of RHO getting back in with a heart ruff. All that info is known* to declarer ~ would it influence the contract? Well it certainly doesn't damage declarer knowing it. *(this is probably helped by RHO's quick return of a diamond once the heart is lead with AH on table, I don't know for certain but I think it is a "reasonable" assumption). However, if those are the rules then so be it ~ but should the TD remain to adjust for use of UI ~ remember the TD has no idea of "supplementary" UI held by declarer because he has not seen declarers hand? I would say that declarer "at best" wasn't watching what the RHO was doing when he played the KH ~ so he "assumed" the Ace would hold and not be ruffed. This is one part of "Bridge Laws" that I cannot fathom, the apportioning of blame in this case declarer has not observed; Law 46A Law 74B1 There are other laws I could point to but no doubt it is down to my strict interpretation of them  How can the "game" hold legitimacy when 1 side clearly made an error "declarers" and yet they have the chance to put it right to the detriment of defenders. If declarer calls for a card from dummy and doesn't watch (74B1) what is played and then misses the KH being played and still doesn't notice the Ace was not played (74B1) declarer should lose the right to appeal the played card ~ but the opposition should have a right to correct a card call from declarer that dummy doesn't follow. Still, in my humble opinion, defenders should have asked declarer to "say again" what card he called for Thanks again bluejak I appreciate your input. I hope you don't mind me putting forward a "players perspective" on the decisions made But I would add, come "play time" I NEVER question a TD over a decision. This has cost me in the past with bad decisions being made against me ~ but my firm belief is a TD never gives a bad decision on purpose and I will not be the first to cast the proverbail stone (unless the opposition make a meal out of a situation ).  All the best, John. |
|
ne_trepide 14 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
john i cannot believe you are serious when you suggest the defender should ask the declarer to clarify which card was called for.
it should be sufficient to accept that dummy has heard correctly and played accordingly or if dummy is in doubt then dummy should ask for clarification. for the defender to ask for a clarification is a clear signal to the declarer that the king of hearts (in this particular example) is held by the RH defender. it is also a clear signal to the defender's partner that the KH is held. akin to cheating i would think. think of the implications of such enquiries - not to mention how the game would be slowed, and don't suggest one should only ask when one has not heard clearly. how do anyone else know why the enquiry is being raised? |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 2 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
8 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 7 guest(s). (The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003) bluejak |
|
Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm. | Register :: Log in The time is now 00:36:30 Wed Aug 27 2003 |
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
Legend :: 
Read Topic :: 
Unread Topic
Read Topic :: Unread Topic
Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status