[pran]

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.

Simply just incorrect:

Law 44C said:

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

weejonnie, on 2019-August-14, 16:49, said:

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).

Law 44C has remained (essentially) unchanged since (at least) 1936!

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2019-August-14, 22:19, said:

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.

Given dummy's duty to follow suit, just calling "small" should obtain the effect desired by calling "play", without the same risk of falling foul of the law. It sounds even sillier though. Hopefully the law makers will simplify things before electronic play makes the whole debate irrelevant.

[sanst]

pran, on 2019-August-15, 00:01, said:

Law 44C said:
In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.

Law 44C has remained (essentially) unchanged since (at least) 1936!

Totally OT: that doesn’t surprise me. It looks quite old fashioned since it doesn’t add anything, but was deemed necessary in the days that the laws were just some rules about the game, not a set of legal niceties that are endlessly discussed on internet fora (forums?). Literally it implies that to revoke is the gravest possible offence, but it is not. That qualification has been given to “exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws”. I know players who state that that isn’t right either; they think a breach of Law 74A, especially the use of physical or psychological force, insults and abuse, deserves that stamp.

[barmar]

sanst, on 2019-August-15, 02:43, said:

Totally OT: that doesn’t surprise me. It looks quite old fashioned since it doesn’t add anything, but was deemed necessary in the days that the laws were just some rules about the game, not a set of legal niceties that are endlessly discussed on internet fora (forums?). Literally it implies that to revoke is the gravest possible offence, but it is not. That qualification has been given to “exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws”. I know players who state that that isn’t right either; they think a breach of Law 74A, especially the use of physical or psychological force, insults and abuse, deserves that stamp.

Precedence is only relevant if you have to choose which law to apply in a given situation. Since none of those laws apply in the situation where 44C is applicable, it doesn't make much sense to say that they're less important than it. We may consider them more important because of how violations affect the game in general.

Of course, if people routinely violated 44C, it wouldn't even be the same game.

[blackshoe]

It's unreasonable to expect folks to follow the rules, because "nobody" does that. I get it. But the laws define proper procedure, and they do not say that "top, "small", "Jack", or whatever is proper procedure.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-August-15, 14:55, said:

It's unreasonable to expect folks to follow the rules, because "nobody" does that. I get it. But the laws define proper procedure, and they do not say that "top, "small", "Jack", or whatever is proper procedure.

Yet they do regulate the interpretation of such terms and impose related restrictions. I can't think of any other sport or realm of life where the laws describe the correct way to commit an infraction.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-August-15, 14:55, said:

It's unreasonable to expect folks to follow the rules, because "nobody" does that. I get it. But the laws define proper procedure, and they do not say that "top, "small", "Jack", or whatever is proper procedure.

The real problem is that nobody reads the Laws. They learn the game from other players. If older players say "play", the newer players will pick it up, and it just continues.

Most players are woefully ignorant of what parts of the game are officially required and what are just traditions. If you poll players who aren't directors and don't actively participate in discussions like these, I think you would find that most of them don't know that the following are required in the Laws: the way cards are laid out in dummy (trumps on dummy's right, cards ordered within suits), the way quitted tricks are pointed, opening lead face down (but not asking "any questions, partner?"), shuffling cards before putting them back in the board, counting your cards when removing from the board.

I think most would be very surprised to know about Law 46 explicitly stating how to interpret various incomplete designations. I'm sure most of them assume that any designation that's easily understood is OK.

Players learn this stuff much the same way they learn language as children, by osmosis. Expecting them to follow the official rules for minutiae like this is like expecting people to speak perfectly grammatically.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-August-16, 08:42, said:

The real problem is that nobody reads the Laws.

The real problem is that in many cases (including this one) the Laws are not very good.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2019-August-16, 08:42, said:

opening lead face down (but not asking "any questions, partner?"),

To be fair, this one serves a purpose. If OL’s partner wants to ask about the auction while the bidding cards are still on the table, it doesn’t hurt to give him a bit of time to ask when the face-down opening lead is made. It is a nuisance and a waste of time to have to put the bidding cards out again after dummy is faced and it is the third players turn to ply.

[blackshoe]

I can't imagine putting the bidding cards back out at third player's turn. Never seen it happen here. In fact, the only time I've seen players put bidding cards back on the table after they've picked them up is when I still have a call, and have not moved, said anything, or touched my bidding cards. They look at me, utter a confused "oh", and put them back. But the normal procedure is that bidding cards disappear as soon as somebody thinks a "final bid" has been made. E.g., 1NT-P-3NT-bidding cards disappear. :-(

Even "please explain your auction" doesn't need bidding cards on the table. Nor should answers to that question include a review of the bidding; that's not what was asked. Of course, what usually happens is a reluctant "well, my partner opened 1!C..." followed by a long pause as if the player doesn't know what to say next, or he's waiting for his partner to continue with "and my partner then bid 1!D..." again followed by a pause.

Maybe we should hold "how to answer questions" drills.

And of course, the chance that an opening lead will be made face up is considerably higher than zero, at least around here.

[axman]

barmar, on 2019-August-16, 08:42, said:

The real problem is that nobody reads the Laws. They learn the game from other players. If older players say "play", the newer players will pick it up, and it just continues.

Most players are woefully ignorant …..

I thought you said, 'Most players are woefully arrogant '

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2019-August-15, 02:42, said:

Given dummy's duty to follow suit, just calling "small" should obtain the effect desired by calling "play", without the same risk of falling foul of the law. It sounds even sillier though. Hopefully the law makers will simplify things before electronic play makes the whole debate irrelevant.

No, “play” means any card.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2019-August-16, 12:44, said:

Even "please explain your auction" doesn't need bidding cards on the table.

It does, actually, you may want to know about alternative calls, etc. Just “partner has shown blah blah blah and I have shown bleh bleh bleh” may not be sufficient and may not be entirely complete. Also it can be useful to know what dummy has shown before declarer has had a look at dummy.

If players put their bidding cards back in the box before the opening lead is made face down, well that is your problem, not one for the rest of the world. That is, until the ACBL enshrine the practice in law. I am a realist and know that it is only a matter of time.

To be honest I have asked for the bidding cards to be replaced at third player’s turn only a couple of times. Usually if the bidding cards are taken away too early the other side will require them to be put back before the opening lead is made.

[blackshoe]

What's wrong with "what alternative calls to the 2!S your partner actually bid did he have available, and what would they mean"? After all, you kind of need to remember the auction after the bidding cards are removed anyway.

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2019-August-16, 17:00, said:

No, “play” means any card.

I was talking about a hypothesis of revised and more logical rules. Asking dummy to play any card is not logical when you can obtain the lowest card in the legal suit with just one word.

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2019-August-17, 01:42, said:

I was talking about a hypothesis of revised and more logical rules. Asking dummy to play any card is not logical when you can obtain the lowest card in the legal suit with just one word.

Even if the Laws are changed, “play” is illogical. Or would it mean “small” in every circumstance?
Since you state that the current laws aren’t very good or logical, I presume that you have a proposal ready for improvement. Not just “Law 44C is illogical” but a better version of that law. Have you and did you submit it to the Italian federation? Or are you on of these people that complain about the laws, but have not the slightest inkling how much thought, discussions and work has gone into making these to what they are now?

[axman]

sanst, on 2019-August-17, 02:05, said:

..... but have not the slightest inkling how much thought, discussions and work has gone into making these to what they are now?

Well, I have. To which I say that the work was not enough, nor of the right nature.

[sanst]

axman, on 2019-August-17, 05:54, said:

Well, I have. To which I say that the work was not enough, nor of the right nature.

So you have a new and better lawbook ready.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2019-August-16, 22:58, said:

What's wrong with "what alternative calls to the 2!S your partner actually bid did he have available, and what would they mean"? After all, you kind of need to remember the auction after the bidding cards are removed anyway.

Yes, but in a long auction you might not remember every call, and besides, it is common to want an explanation of what the auction meant from beginning to end. At my age when I am concentrating on the explanation of a bid I might forget the rest of the auction.

You feel that there are advantages to removing the bidding cards as soon as the final pass is made. Luckily, the ACBL accommodates you. I feel differently, and luckily the EBU accommodates me.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2019-August-17, 02:05, said:

Even if the Laws are changed, “play” is illogical. Or would it mean “small” in every circumstance?

The word could be "play" or any similar term and yes it would always mean "small" and also "follow suit" or "lead from the current suit" as appropriate.

sanst, on 2019-August-17, 02:05, said:

Since you state that the current laws aren’t very good or logical, I presume that you have a proposal ready for improvement.

I state that the current laws are often not very good or logical. Sometimes they are both and occasionally they are excellent, but not often enough, as evidenced by the frequent incapacity of TDs to agree what they mean or what consequences their application should have.

sanst, on 2019-August-17, 02:05, said:

Have you and did you submit it to the Italian federation? Or are you on of these people that complain about the laws, but have not the slightest inkling how much thought, discussions and work has gone into making these to what they are now?

For now I'm trying to learn the laws better and to help improve the national regulations, which is what the Federation is responsible for. If at some point in the future when I have more experience I get a chance to contribute to a team improving the laws of the game, I will be happy to do so. I have more than a slight inkling of the work involved.