[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-09, 04:13, said:

Generally, I specify the rank and denomination of the card I want. One of my regular partners has picked up the habit. Yay!

Leadership by example is not dead.

[gordontd]

I've noticed that many people have trouble distinguishing "two" from "three" when their hearing declines. This doesn't matter much in the play, but it does when using spoken bidding. When I first learned to play with my grand-mother (who was a bit deaf) we used to get round this by saying them in Swahili - "mbili" is not at all like "tatu"!

[mjj29]

barmar, on 2011-December-08, 20:25, said:

I think I've noticed that my regular partner says "play" (or "play it") when it's a singleton.

I sometimes go with "your choice partner"

[mycroft]

...or "pick one".

I've also seen/heard "play the one, please".

I go with "always falsecard from dummy" when they lead the 3 into the 4-2 or the 9-8-7 - unless it's ♦9-8-7, of course.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-09, 06:41, said:

Leadership by example is not dead.

Good, since that would be a really bad example.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2011-December-09, 14:19, said:

Good, since that would be a really bad example.

Rik

It would, huh? Please explain.

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2011-December-09, 14:19, said:

Good, since that would be a really bad example.

Rik

specifying the suit and denomination each time might be a bad example on your planet, rik. On mine it is a good one.

[AlexJonson]

It is obviously a cultural thing.

As dummy I would not respond to 'Play!', since I've never used the term, nor seen it used by anyone else.

A single interloper in my circle would not change my habit, but if it became very common, I'd have to adjust my bidding style to that of the Hideous Hog, and make sure I wasn't Dummy.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-09, 14:38, said:

It would, huh? Please explain.

It´s always bad to explain a joke (and then it was probably not a good joke), but since you asked...

If the leader dies that would be a pretty bad example to follow...

Rik

[Trinidad]

Trinidad, on 2011-December-09, 14:19, said:

Good, since that would be a really bad example.

Rik

aguahombre, on 2011-December-09, 16:35, said:

specifying the suit and denomination each time might be a bad example on your planet, rik. On mine it is a good one.

I thought it was obvious that that was not the example I was talking about.

Dying, however, would not be good example to follow. But, as Alex points out (in a different context): It is obviously a cultural thing.

Rik

[blackshoe]

If it was a good joke, I probably would have understood it.

Besides, everybody follows the "dying" example, sooner or later.

[Cascade]

The correct way to play a card is to designate a suit and rank - L46A. Other designations are infractions. Most of Law 46 is about how to deal with improper designations such as "low", "play" etc.

Law 46B5 covers precisely what is to happen when a declarer indicates a play without designating either suit or rank. Either defender has the right to choose the card played.

[bluejak]

However, since it is known what is meant by "play" it is not a matter for the defenders to choose as a matter of Law.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-December-09, 22:24, said:

However, since it is known what is meant by "play" it is not a matter for the defenders to choose as a matter of Law.

Disagree.

Quote

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.

Law 46B5

'play' seems to be "words of like meaning" to 'play anything'.

'play' also "indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank".

Given that there can be no reason not to apply the law.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2011-December-09, 22:24, said:

However, since it is known what is meant by "play" it is not a matter for the defenders to choose as a matter of Law.

You are probably correct as a practical matter; but it is not known by me what is meant by "play". I won't try to invoke the silliness that I get to choose what card is played, but there is no law which authorizes or encourages the use of the term, and I will never concede what it allegedly means; will patiently wait for a card to be actually played and give declarer time to negate the "play" before falling for it.

When they eventually realize that I don't know what card was called for, they might get the point.

[RMB1]

Cascade, on 2011-December-09, 22:38, said:

Disagree.

Law 46B5

Disagree.

Law 46B: "(except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible)"

If "everyone" knows what "play" means, then declarer's intention is incontrovertibly different from "play anything".

[Cascade]

RMB1, on 2011-December-10, 03:06, said:

Disagree.

Law 46B: "(except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible)"

If "everyone" knows what "play" means, then declarer's intention is incontrovertibly different from "play anything".

That is a big "if".

I don't see how from the one word 'play' you can determine an incontrovertible intention.

[RMB1]

Cascade, on 2011-December-10, 03:59, said:

That is a big "if".

Not round here, I think it is universally understood where I play and direct.

Cascade, on 2011-December-10, 03:59, said:

I don't see how from the one word 'play' you can determine an incontrovertible intention.

I think there are many places where bridge is played where "play" is used and is understood to not mean the same as "play anything"; and I think that in many places where it is so understood, it would be peverse to rule that the difference was not incontrovertible.

[Cascade]

Even if one can be convinced of that, and I am not so sure, the practice of saying "play" should be discouraged given that it is contrary to the laws.

[blackshoe]

So are all the other forms of calling for a card listed in Law 46B.