[billw55]

lamford, on 2013-January-10, 09:49, said:

The EBU county director course gave a similar example where declarer just said "any", and I thought declarer could be required to play a low card, but I now agree I was wrong in that belief. If dummy's spades in this example had been J102, I would have ruled that he was not required to play the two, as his intention to play the jack or ten was incontrovertible. Ton argues that playing the jack or king in the example he gave is the only sensible line to make the contract and to play low is not reasonable. In this example, playing the eight is only reasonable if you are under the mistaken belief that you have the nine. You could equally validly argue that it is "completely obvious South is going to play the jack or ten to fulfil his contract, or to give himself a chance to do so".

IMO this is completely absurd. Any means any! What on earth else could it possibly mean? It is 10000% obvious that "any" falls under law 46 B5. Any other ruling is a total joke and frankly, a disgrace to the game (again, IMO).

I could live with "either", although "top" is in fact easier to say.

edit: in fact, if the example happened as I understand - a guess from KJx - then "either" is also unacceptable, because it invites dummy to make a decision that matters. Defender should be able to choose which honor is played.

[barmar]

EricK, on 2013-January-10, 16:50, said:

As an aside, why does anybody ever not specify the card by name when dummy is following suit? Every card name is one syllable long (OK, except the 7), so saying "low" or "top" saves no time, and saying "either" or "any" or "it doesn't matter" costs time!

I think it's more of a mental effort issue than time. "Low" and "high" mirror the way you're thinking about the play -- you're rarely concerned about the specific card among equivalents. It takes more thought to translate from your concept of "just play some immaterial little card" to "play the 3".

Of course, if you do put in that effort, it will almost certainly improve your game. How many times have you forgotten whether some spot card was good? This comes from lazy thinking about the small cards. Over the weekend, I got a good board when I was in a NT contract with the following spade suit: 9 opposite AQJ82. I took a losing finesse of the queen, and when I got back to dummy I played the spades from the top. When the 10 dropped on the third round, I had to stop to remember what singleton I'd led. I finally decided that I did remember that it was the 9, making the 8 high, so I took the rest of the suit -- if I'd been wrong, I was going down instead of making overtricks.

But most players are just not that into it. If they're not thinking about specific cards, they're not going to name specific cards.

[Siegmund]

Quote

As an aside, why does anybody ever not specify the card by name when dummy is following suit? Every card name is one syllable long (OK, except the 7), so saying "low" or "top" saves no time, and saying "either" or "any" or "it doesn't matter" costs time!

When I was a bridge baby, I was told to make a point of avoiding naming cards by name unless I had to, so that the adjacent tables would not hear the contents of the dummy read out loud to them, creating UI. It made sense to me, at least in the context of a small club game where there was not a general hubbub of sound.

I don't know if that's the same reason others do it, or if people are just imitating 'everybody else'.

[aguahombre]

Then, when I reached puberty I learned how to control my voice so I could comply with the requirements of declarer. In the November of life, I have become lazy and often say "High", "low", anything but "play".

[bluejak]

billw55, on 2013-January-11, 07:22, said:

IMO this is completely absurd. Any means any! What on earth else could it possibly mean? It is 10000% obvious that "any" falls under law 46 B5. Any other ruling is a total joke and frankly, a disgrace to the game (again, IMO).

You have a Law that has an over-riding condition. So "any" means any, subject to the over-riding condition as a matter of Law.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2013-January-26, 16:31, said:

You have a Law that has an over-riding condition. So "any" means any, subject to the over-riding condition as a matter of Law.

I can't figure out what you are saying. You quote billw55, and the law to which he refers is 46 B5. 46 B5 states what happens after "any means any"...the defenders (not dummy) get to choose which "any" is played. It stands by itself, with no over-riding condition that I can see.

So, you either agree with him and are saying nothing new; or you disagree and are referring to some over-riding condition to which we are not privy.

[GreenMan]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-26, 19:58, said:

I can't figure out what you are saying. You quote billw55, and the law to which he refers is 46 B5. 46 B5 states what happens after "any means any"...the defenders (not dummy) get to choose which "any" is played. It stands by itself, with no over-riding condition that I can see.

So, you either agree with him and are saying nothing new; or you disagree and are referring to some over-riding condition to which we are not privy.

46B states that none of the following restrictions apply if "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". That sure looks like an overriding condition to me.

[nige1]

The Dictionary said:

Incontrovertible adjective impossible to deny or disprove, necessarily or demonstrably true

Perhaps If declarer is a novice who invariably plays dummy's suits from the top down. But Incontrovertible is a high standard to achieve. Assuming of course that

• The director hasn't yet attended the famous mind-reading course for TDs and
• Incontrovertible hasn't been redefined for Bridge law purposes (as, for example, has Equity)

[aguahombre]

GreenMan, on 2013-January-26, 20:36, said:

46B states that none of the following restrictions apply if "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". That sure looks like an overriding condition to me.

Check how billw55 and I worded our posts. He contends that "any" means what it says. AFTER that, 46b5 takes over. You are just doubting that "any" means that. We are talking about two different things.

[GreenMan]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-26, 23:13, said:

Check how billw55 and I worded our posts. He contends that "any" means what it says. AFTER that, 46b5 takes over. You are just doubting that "any" means that. We are talking about two different things.

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-26, 23:13, said:

Check how billw55 and I worded our posts. He contends that "any" means what it says. AFTER that, 46b5 takes over.

I checked. I don't agree that his post says that.

[billw55]

Good grief. Saying "any" by default excludes the possibility of an incontrovertible intention other than "any". I think that is completely clear from my post, and in fact from the situation itself.

I still think that any argument to the contrary is absurd. And since I just said "any", guess what? I mean it. Shocking.

[lamford]

billw55, on 2013-January-27, 10:23, said:

Good grief. Saying "any" by default excludes the possibility of an incontrovertible intention other than "any". I think that is completely clear from my post, and in fact from the situation itself.

I still think that any argument to the contrary is absurd. And since I just said "any", guess what? I mean it. Shocking.

If the intention of the Laws were that "any" was always deemed to mean "any", then why would there be any clause "unless the declarer's intention is incontrovertible"? If declarer said "spade" then that would be a low spade again "unless the declarer' intention is inconvertible". So, for better or for worse, the Laws allow declarer to say something completely different to his incontrovertible intention. With A3 opposite K2, how do you rule, if the suit is say spades, when declarer leads the two and says "any", "either", "spade", "heart", "play" or "king"? I think I rule that he plays the ace in all cases.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2013-January-27, 11:19, said:

So, for better or for worse, the Laws allow declarer to say something completely different to his incontrovertible intention. With A3 opposite K2, how do you rule, if the suit is say spades, when declarer leads the two and says "any", "either", "spade", "heart", "play" or "king"? I think I rule that he plays the ace in all cases.

That example is one end of the "incontrovertible" spectrum. Where do you draw the line in your tolerance for sloppy designations?

XX ------- XX
XX ------- AX
AK9XXX----- JT8
v---------- XX

At NoTrump, Declarer leads the Diamond Ace, and calls "any". If dummy comes close to pulling anything but the 8 (which blocks the suit), do you apply "incontrovertable"? At least my silly example gets us back closer to the post which spawned all this nonsense...the JT8 in dummy.

[GreenMan]

There are two questions here being argued as if they were just one:

Does the phrase "unless declarer's intention is incontrovertible" appear in L46B, and if so, does it apply to the rest of that Law? (I believe it does.)

In the example given, is declarer's intention indeed incontrovertible? I tend toward "no" but appreciate the discussion of cases where it might be.

[bluejak]

billw55, on 2013-January-27, 10:23, said:

Good grief. Saying "any" by default excludes the possibility of an incontrovertible intention other than "any". I think that is completely clear from my post, and in fact from the situation itself.

I think it is clear from your post. Wrong in Law, but clear.

[billw55]

lamford, on 2013-January-27, 11:19, said:

With A3 opposite K2, how do you rule, if the suit is say spades, when declarer leads the two and says "any", "either", "spade", "heart", "play" or "king"? I think I rule that he plays the ace in all cases.

I stand by my opinion that this is utterly absurd.

For the record, my judgement would be:

"any" "either" - defender may choose. Basis: simple english.
"spade" "play" - means the lowest card. Basis: commonly known slang.
"king" "heart" - are not legal plays. Declarer must try again to name a legal play. Basis: common sense.

Thankfully, all of these are in complete accordance with Law 46 as I read it. So the law is just fine; but some of the people interpreting it are evidently doing a terrible job. IMO to reach the conclusion that declarer, having said "any", actually has an incontrovertible intention other than "any", is laughable chop logic.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2013-January-27, 11:19, said:

If the intention of the Laws were that "any" was always deemed to mean "any", then why would there be any clause "unless the declarer's intention is incontrovertible"? If declarer said "spade" then that would be a low spade again "unless the declarer' intention is inconvertible". So, for better or for worse, the Laws allow declarer to say something completely different to his incontrovertible intention. With A3 opposite K2, how do you rule, if the suit is say spades, when declarer leads the two and says "any", "either", "spade", "heart", "play" or "king"? I think I rule that he plays the ace in all cases.

In the OP, declarer's intention to play an honour isn't incontrovertible. Analogously, suppose declarer, with ♠ JT8 in hand opposite ♠ Qxx in dummy, leads a small ♠ from dummy and deliberately but carelessly plays ♠8 from hand, losing to LHO's ♠9. Should the director allow declarer to correct his mistake?

Declarer's intention is not incontrovertible in the A2 opposite K2 example. Again, most likely, declarer just made a careless mistake.

With difficulty, you can imagine contexts where declarer's intention might be incontrovertible or nearly so. For instance declarer, with ♠ xxx opposite dummy's ♠ AQJ, audibly soliloquises, "To make this I must first take the ♠ finesse". He immediately leads a small ♠ from hand and, when LHO follows low, says "any".

[barmar]

"incontrovertible" is a very high standard. I believe this should only be invoked in very obvious circumstances. Like the player is clearly running a suit, and forgets to say "high" one time.

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2013-January-28, 10:47, said:

"incontrovertible" is a very high standard. I believe this should only be invoked in very obvious circumstances. Like the player is clearly running a suit, and forgets to say "high" one time.

We had something just like this at the club, last week. Declarer had a diamond suit like AKJ9x in dummy opposite a stiff Q. She cashed the Q, crossed to dummy in another suit, and called for a "diamond"... (No doubt we should have called the TD, but this is never a popular move at the club! I simply persuaded partner that declarer's intention was clear and that he wasn't going to win this trick with ♦10.)