[c_corgi]

 campboy, on 2013-November-24, 06:58, said:

...

Obviously it is far better to discuss this sort of problem in a theoretical setting and get the law fixed before it actually comes up, which is exactly why Lamford's threads can be so valuable.

True. But fixing the laws to such an extent that a literal interpretation of them will never give silly results is a long way off. I suspect that implementing silly rulings whenever the literal interpretation of the laws demand it would mean that bridge ceases to exist long before the laws are fixed. Using the literal interpretation has the benefit of avoiding subjective decisions regarding what is "silly" and what isn't, but IMO the cost would be too high.

[campboy]

 pran, on 2013-November-24, 07:05, said:

By your own language BIT is always an infraction:
[...]
The word "should" have exactly the same meaning here as in Law 46A.

All that means is that an undue BIT is an infraction. Hesitating because you have something to think about is not.

[lamford]

 JLOGIC, on 2013-November-24, 05:17, said:

In this case, even if calling "small" instead of "six" is an infraction, why would we think it might have influenced the play?

Calling for the six of diamonds had a reasonable chance of success, we will call it x%. Against this particular East, that would have been quite high, as East has to realise that it is a winner, when he should work out to ruff with the king, not a small one. Let us guess that it would have worked 75% of the time anyway. I checked out 30 hands recently with declarers of different strengths. When they are running a suit from dummy, and they are only winners, or the only cards of that suit left, they usually say "diamond", for example, and sometimes specify the card, and sometime say "top diamond". In 30 instances I watched, when the cards were equal, "low diamond" was not selected once.

It is clear that by selecting the phrase "low diamond" in this instance, taking into account the whole hand, not just the phrase on its own, declarer could have known that the deliberate breach of Law 46A could have been to his benefit. It could easily reinforce the belief in East's mind that declarer intended to ruff this. It increased the chance of making the contract from x% to x+y%. It is this y%, with some adjustment in favour of the non-offenders, that you award to EW for the infraction. The problem occurs in non-weighted-score land, where I presume that you have to give one score or another.

You would give up bridge if a TD ruled in favour of EW here. I would give up bridge if coffee-housing of this type became prevalent and was not punished. Out of interest, how would you rule if declarer has said "play the losing diamond" and dummy had led the six?

For what it is worth, if declarer had said "diamond", I would not adjust, as I would estimate that y is indeed 0%.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2013-November-22, 11:56, said:

SB needs to get a life.

I laughed; hope it was intended. So should Wile E. Coyote.

[campboy]

 c_corgi, on 2013-November-24, 07:14, said:

True. But fixing the laws to such an extent that a literal interpretation of them will never give silly results is a long way off. I suspect that implementing silly rulings whenever the literal interpretation of the laws demand it would mean that bridge ceases to exist long before the laws are fixed. Using the literal interpretation has the benefit of avoiding subjective decisions regarding what is "silly" and what isn't, but IMO the cost would be too high.

Well IMO the law about calling for cards from dummy should have been changed long ago to match actual practice; most people normally call for "small" and no-one really thinks of it as irregular. I suspect that the reason it hasn't changed is that it is regarded as unimportant; Lamford has shown us that it can matter.

I think talking about this being a "literal" reading of the laws is unhelpful. There are lots of situations where I am happy to interpret a word or phrase in a way that I think is plausible and makes more sense than a strict dictionary definition (see my definition of "suggested" in another thread). But interpreting "an infraction" as "not an infraction" seems to me to be so far from what is written as to not be an interpretation so much as a re-imagining.

[paulhuggin]

Until designations such as "small", "top" etc which do not designate the card to be played by rank are explicitly forbidden by the laws then declarer can use them freely. And if this is deemed to be coffee housing then how about running a long suit hoping for oppo to discard the wrong thing - is that not also trying to induce an error? And if the answer to my example is "oppo can work it out" then surely the same applies to working out whether a spot card is a winner or not?

[chrism]

 lamford, on 2013-November-24, 07:18, said:

You would give up bridge if a TD ruled in favour of EW here. I would give up bridge if coffee-housing of this type became prevalent and was not punished.

Fortunaely for bridge it is possible that the TD could rule in favour of neither side here. I would only adjust against declarer if there were some evidence that he did not routinely call "small" for the lowest card of a suit. I would be hard put to think of circumstances for giving EW redress.

Notwithstanding the passion expressed ny some of the posters, it is important that we understand exactly what the Laws say before imposing our personal concept of "fairness". In this case the Laws provide a justification for adjustment, but they also provide an escape clause since IMO "could have known" gives wriggle-room to exonerate those declarers who are clearly just following the habit of a lifetime. Yes, a reflective or dishonest declarer could have known, but could *this* declarer?

[lamford]

 paulhuggin, on 2013-November-24, 07:27, said:

Until designations such as "small", "top" etc which do not designate the card to be played by rank are explicitly forbidden by the laws then declarer can use them freely. And if this is deemed to be coffee housing then how about running a long suit hoping for oppo to discard the wrong thing - is that not also trying to induce an error? And if the answer to my example is "oppo can work it out" then surely the same applies to working out whether a spot card is a winner or not?

You miss the point. Redress is only provided in the rare cases where varying from 46A could work to one's advantage. There was a hand on here in which declarer received a lead of the two of spades in a heart contract. Dummy had KJx and declarer stiff queen. Declarer called for "any" from dummy, because he knew the two of spades was not a singleton, but RHO did not, and declarer just needed one pitch not two. The consensus on this forum was that "any", rather than specifying the card, was a breach of 46A and should be punished. I recall a leading European TD thinking it merited a PP. I shall reconstruct the whole hand if this is not clear. It would be good to have three or four threads on the same subject until barmar cries "enough!".

[campboy]

 paulhuggin, on 2013-November-24, 07:27, said:

Until designations such as "small", "top" etc which do not designate the card to be played by rank are explicitly forbidden by the laws then declarer can use them freely.

The problem is that they are explicitly forbidden by the laws; IMO they shouldn't be. Law 46A says "When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card," and "should" is defined to mean that failure to do so is an infraction.

[lamford]

 chrism, on 2013-November-24, 07:40, said:

Yes, a reflective or dishonest declarer could have known, but could *this* declarer?

That is not the benchmark that is applied. The question is could the so-called "Probst cheat" have known? One of John's constructions was the player dropping both small cards from Kxx in a slam when declarer led the queen of trumps from QJTxx opposite Axxxx. We rule against this "Probst cheat", even though it is extremely unlikely that anyone could think quickly enough to pull off that ruse.

[OleBerg]

 lamford, on 2013-November-24, 07:18, said:

Calling for the six of diamonds had a reasonable chance of success, we will call it x%. Against this particular East, that would have been quite high, as East has to realise that it is a winner, when he should work out to ruff with the king, not a small one. Let us guess that it would have worked 75% of the time anyway. I checked out 30 hands recently with declarers of different strengths. When they are running a suit from dummy, and they are only winners, or the only cards of that suit left, they usually say "diamond", for example, and sometimes specify the card, and sometime say "top diamond". In 30 instances I watched, when the cards were equal, "low diamond" was not selected once.

It is clear that by selecting the phrase "low diamond" in this instance, taking into account the whole hand, not just the phrase on its own, declarer could have known that the deliberate breach of Law 46A could have been to his benefit. It could easily reinforce the belief in East's mind that you intended to ruff this. It increased the chance of making the contract from x% to x+y%. It is this y%, with some adjustment in favour of the non-offenders, that you award to EW for the infraction. The problem occurs in non-weighted-score land, where I presume that you have to give one score or another.

You would give up bridge if a TD ruled in favour of EW here. I would give up bridge if coffee-housing of this type became prevalent and was not punished. Out of interest, how would you rule if declarer has said "play the losing diamond" and dummy had led the six?

For what it is worth, if declarer had said "diamond", I would not adjust, as I would estimate that y is indeed 0%.

I think what lamford meant to say was: "Because East is likely to think of a "small" as a loser, while he might think of "♦6" as a possible winner, and thus think." (I still wait to hear where in the laws there is justification for the assumption that the infraction would cause East to react thus.)

But instead he described what his reasoning would be after he established that there there was an infraction.

Best Regards

Ole Berg

Ps.: If the player said: "Play the losing diamond" against an absolute beginner, I would definitely consider it bad style, but not something for the TD to resolve. This would more be a case for the manager. ("We do not like your kind around here, please leave, and come back when you have learned to behave.")

[nige1]

 campboy, on 2013-November-24, 07:44, said:

The problem is that they are explicitly forbidden by the laws; IMO they shouldn't be. Law 46A says "When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card," and "should" is defined to mean that failure to do so is an infraction.

Bridge law specifies the correct designatiion so "small diamond" is an irregularity -- not normally penalised. The question is: should you be allowed to gain from an irregularity? Here is an abnormal context, where the illegal designation could convey a false impression to East. Whether to condone a possible ploy is a matter of judgement. I confess, as East, I might be gullible enough to taken in but, IMO, even if you, yourself, would never go wrong, it shouldn't overly influence your ruling. What is Gordontd's view?

[pran]

 campboy, on 2013-November-24, 07:23, said:

Well IMO the law about calling for cards from dummy should have been changed long ago to match actual practice; most people normally call for "small" and no-one really thinks of it as irregular. I suspect that the reason it hasn't changed is that it is regarded as unimportant; Lamford has shown us that it can matter.

I think talking about this being a "literal" reading of the laws is unhelpful. There are lots of situations where I am happy to interpret a word or phrase in a way that I think is plausible and makes more sense than a strict dictionary definition (see my definition of "suggested" in another thread). But interpreting "an infraction" as "not an infraction" seems to me to be so far from what is written as to not be an interpretation so much as a re-imagining.

As I have already pointed out: This Law was changed in 1975 (into its current version).

The laws before 1975 just stated that declarer plays a card from dummy by naming it or by touching it. They included no further specification on how to "name" a card, and I have strong reasons to believe that using words like "small" etc. had commonly been used whenever unambiguous for as long as a "dummy" player has existed in the game of Bridge. (The oldest book on Bridge - predecessor to Auction Bridge - in my Library, issued in 1906, includes rules applicable on "Dummy".)

[andyv]

I guess next time I play such a hand I'll have to call for the "small diamond that is good". Of course, if my memory has failed me and the diamond isn't good, I'd still be in trouble.

[aguahombre]

 andyv, on 2013-November-24, 11:14, said:

I guess next time I play such a hand I'll have to call for the "small diamond that is good". Of course, if my memory has failed me and the diamond isn't good, I'd still be in trouble.

Is this our renowned VG commentator? If so, can we expect more contributions than one every year or so?

[blackshoe]

Coffee-housing should be stamped out. So should bridge-lawyering. In this case one player may or may not have been coffee-housing. His opponent was clearly bridge-lawyering.

[lamford]

 aguahombre, on 2013-November-24, 11:31, said:

Is this our renowned VG commentator? If so, can we expect more contributions than one every year or so?

Judging by the quality of the comment, the current average of twice per millennium is about right.

[aguahombre]

It certainly improved the overcall quality of this thread. Except for Ed's urging of a fictional character to get a life, the rest is weak.

[lamford]

 aguahombre, on 2013-November-24, 15:16, said:

It certainly improved the overcall quality of this thread. Except for Ed's urging of a fictional character to get a life, the rest is weak.

What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy? - George Orwell

[aguahombre]

Except for the part about your giving the rest of the posters' opinions a fair hearing, I totally agree.