[pran]

jeffford76, on 2019-August-12, 19:47, said:

Are you seriously going to argue that someone saying “play” doesn’t mean that?

Law 46 B. Incomplete or Invalid Designation said:

In the case of an incomplete or invalid designation, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):
{...}
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.

[sanst]

jeffford76, on 2019-August-12, 19:47, said:

Are you seriously going to argue that someone saying “play” doesn’t mean that?

You should designate at least the rank in some way, like “high” or “low”, otherwise the defenders can decide for you. Given the chance, I do, calling the TD if the declarer or dummy protests. Doesn’t make you popular, though. But what is wrong with playing according to the laws?

[blackshoe]

I am seriously going to argue that the proper way to call for a card from dummy is to name the rank and denomination of the card, and that not doing it that way is an infraction of law.

[barmar]

Pran, are you arguing that when dummy has a card in the suit being led (e.g. clubs), "play" is intended as "play anything" (so opponents can choose the card) rather than "play a club" (which means the lowest club)?

Have you ever, in your life, encountered a declarer who actually meant this (cases where all the legal cards are equivalent don't count)?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2019-August-13, 08:47, said:

Pran, are you arguing that when dummy has a card in the suit being led (e.g. clubs), "play" is intended as "play anything" (so opponents can choose the card) rather than "play a club" (which means the lowest club)?

Have you ever, in your life, encountered a declarer who actually meant this (cases where all the legal cards are equivalent don't count)?

It doesn’t really matter what they mean, does it? Nobody knows that; they know only what the person said. If the defendersconsistently choose a card, then perhaps this odious practice wikl eventually stop.

[pran]

barmar, on 2019-August-13, 08:47, said:

Pran, are you arguing that when dummy has a card in the suit being led (e.g. clubs), "play" is intended as "play anything" (so opponents can choose the card) rather than "play a club" (which means the lowest club)?

Have you ever, in your life, encountered a declarer who actually meant this (cases where all the legal cards are equivalent don't count)?

1: I assume that you noticed in my post the important clause in Law 46B: except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible

2: Yes, I have indeed encountered Law 46B5 to literally kicking in, but never in a situation where it matters which (legal) card is played from Dummy. Consequently nobody bothered - "why create problems where no problem exists".

Exmple: Declarer's hand is high, he plays his cards one by one and do not care whether Dummy discards an Ace or a deuce. So he just says: "play" (or "play a card").

[jeffford76]

I'm just baffled that people either
a) truly think that people who say "play" really do mean "play anything"
b) think that people who say "play" mean "play low" but somehow this is so offensive to them that they want to enforce it as "play anything"

[blackshoe]

If I were to express the desire that people do anything in particular, it would be that they comply with Law 46B1. If everyone did that all the time there would be no occasion for confusion or controversy over what was meant.

[sanst]

jeffford76, on 2019-August-13, 18:03, said:

I'm just baffled that people either
a) truly think that people who say "play" really do mean "play anything"
b) think that people who say "play" mean "play low" but somehow this is so offensive to them that they want to enforce it as "play anything"

I’m baffled that you think that law 46 should be ignored. You don’t seem to understand that the dummy doesn’t decide anything, but is actually an automaton acting upon the instructions of the declarer. And if the declarer fails to give clear and complete instructions, law 46B gives the answer, especially 46B5. I would think that “Play” is part of the collection of “‘Play anything’ or words of like meaning”. If that’s not the case, please explain.

[weejonnie]

Vampyr, on 2019-August-04, 15:57, said:

Yeses, I think that “play”means play anything.

I have an American friend whom I broke out of the habit, at least when playing with me, whenever he said “play” I would ask, “which one”. It was very effective. Anyway, maybe “play” will fall out of vogue. If everyone is doing it, then it is no longer too cool for words.

Just using the word "play" automatically indicates the lowest card of the suit - Law 46

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

But only because dummy ensures that dummy follows suit. Otherwise 5. would apply.

"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."

[pran]

weejonnie, on 2019-August-14, 03:07, said:

Just using the word "play" automatically indicates the lowest card of the suit - Law 46

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

Exactly, but if declarer does not specify a suit then no suit is indicated by declarer.
The fact that dummy by law must follow a suit led is immaterial in this respect.

So "play" automatically invokes Law 46B5.

[weejonnie]

pran, on 2019-August-14, 05:12, said:

Exactly, but if declarer does not specify a suit then no suit is indicated by declarer.
The fact that dummy by law must follow a suit led is immaterial in this respect.

So "play" automatically invokes Law 46B5.

Well it would other than for law 44C

C. Requirement to Follow Suit
In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over
all other requirements of these Laws.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-August-13, 18:12, said:

If I were to express the desire that people do anything in particular, it would be that they comply with Law 46B1. If everyone did that all the time there would be no occasion for confusion or controversy over what was meant.

Got any more windmills you want to tilt at?

Actually, I know you do: people who just pick up their bidding cards instead of placing the final Pass card.

At the club last night, I estimate that about 25% of declarers said "play" to mean "follow suit low". But it's not a large sample set, it was a 4.5 table game.

[pran]

pran, on 2019-August-14, 05:12, said:

Exactly, but if declarer does not specify a suit then no suit is indicated by declarer.
The fact that dummy by law must follow a suit led is immaterial in this respect.

So "play" automatically invokes Law 46B5.

weejonnie, on 2019-August-14, 07:05, said:

Well it would other than for law 44C

C. Requirement to Follow Suit
In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over
all other requirements of these Laws.

It is not illegal for Declarer to designate another suit from Dummy than the one led, but it is of course illegal for Dummy to play according to such designation.

And if Declarer designates neither suit nor rank then Law 46B5 allows either defender to select the card to be played from Dummy.
Again, the resulting play from Dummy must of course be legal.

Frankly I cannot understand why this simple (and reasonable) law can create so much discussion?

[pran]

barmar, on 2019-August-14, 08:12, said:

Got any more windmills you want to tilt at?

Actually, I know you do: people who just pick up their bidding cards instead of placing the final Pass card.

At the club last night, I estimate that about 25% of declarers said "play" to mean "follow suit low". But it's not a large sample set, it was a 4.5 table game.

Maybe the "play" was incontrovertible?

[pescetom]

pran, on 2019-August-14, 09:49, said:

Frankly I cannot understand why this simple (and reasonable) law can create so much discussion?

Probably because it spends more time trying to be reasonable than to be simple, like much of bridge law.

[blackshoe]

Dummy is required to follow declarer's instructions in playing cards from the dummy. Also, if declarer commits an irregularity, dummy is not permitted to call attention to it. Thus, if declarer calls for a card not of the suit led, when there is a card of the suit led in the dummy, dummy the player has no choice but to put that card in the played position, unless someone calls the director before he does so. The illegality here is declarer's, not dummy's.

[weejonnie]

blackshoe, on 2019-August-14, 14:48, said:

Dummy is required to follow declarer's instructions in playing cards from the dummy. Also, if declarer commits an irregularity, dummy is not permitted to call attention to it. Thus, if declarer calls for a card not of the suit led, when there is a card of the suit led in the dummy, dummy the player has no choice but to put that card in the played position, unless someone calls the director before he does so. The illegality here is declarer's, not dummy's.

Note the wording of the 'require to follow suit' overrides all other laws. Dummy of course has the specific duty to ensure that dummy follows suit. (This was new in the 2017 laws).

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 42A3: He plays the cards of the dummy as declarer’s agent as directed and ensures that dummy follows suit (see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play).

Quote

Law 45F: After dummy’s hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement) without instruction from declarer. If he does so the Director should be summoned forthwith and informed of the action. Play continues. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to declarer and the defenders were damaged by the play suggested.

Quote

Law 43A1{b}: Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.

Quote

Law 43A1{c}: Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

Quote

Law 43B1: Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of the limitations listed in A1 and A2.

Quote

Introduction to the Laws: Established usage has been retained regarding “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), ”shall” do (a violation will incur a penalty more often than not), and “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong, but “may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”.

Given all of the above, what do you suggest dummy do when declarer calls for a card not of the suit led, when the dummy has such a card?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2019-August-13, 08:12, said:

I am seriously going to argue that the proper way to call for a card from dummy is to name the rank and denomination of the card, and that not doing it that way is an infraction of law.

This is a little unreasonable, since naming the suit is unnecessary when the suit was led by another person. “Top”, small, Jack etc all OK when the suit is already known.