[Cascade]

Indeed and they are discouraged as well by the use of the word "should" in 46A.

Perhaps they can be tolerated when they are unambiguous. The fact that there is a provision to resolve incomplete disignations whether ambiguous or not does not make it any more acceptable to use those incomplete designations.

It is lazy and discourteous to call "five" because the laws will resolve the ambiguity the way you intend. When this happens the opponents "should" call the director since an infraction has occurred (L9B1a). I imagine that directors would be less tolerant if they were properly called when these infractions occur.

'play anything' seems tautological to me in that 'anything' doesn't add anything to the meaning of 'play' and neither does 'play' add anything to the meaning of 'anything'. An unqualified 'play' is simply an instruction to play a card without designating the suit or rank much the same as 'anything' designates neither a suit or rank.

Further I think that it is improper for dummy to move a card into a played provision when the card has not been designated properly. Certainly this is the case when there is ambiguity. For all dummy knows declarer could have been intending (incontrovertibly) another card of the same rank or suit or just some other card when the instruction is silent on the suit or rank. Playing what seems obvious to dummy could possibly be construed as trying to influence declarer. At times the influence is obvious. For example declarer says "diamond" and dummy pulls the top diamond. When a top diamond is necessary to win or force out a higher diamond. Just as with 'play' declarer might have had an intention and might not - this is hardly incontrovertible.

My partners are used to me waiting for a complete designation or occasionally me asking "Which queen?"

[Vampyr]

Cascade, on 2011-December-10, 14:33, said:

My partners are used to me waiting for a complete designation or occasionally me asking "Which queen?"

Gosh, if I were playing with you I think I would send you to the bar every time you were dummy and play the cards myself.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-10, 17:57, said:

Gosh, if I were playing with you I think I would send you to the bar every time you were dummy and play the cards myself.

Perhaps if he were playing with you or me, he would go to the bar quite frequently without our insistance.

[Cascade]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-10, 17:57, said:

Gosh, if I were playing with you I think I would send you to the bar every time you were dummy and play the cards myself.

Because I believe it is improper for dummy to suggest a play?

[Bbradley62]

Cascade, on 2011-December-10, 14:33, said:

I imagine that directors would be less tolerant if they were properly called when these infractions occur.

I imagine that directors would become less tolerant of those who repeatedly called them to report such nonsense.

[Cascade]

Bbradley62, on 2011-December-10, 20:13, said:

I imagine that directors would become less tolerant of those who repeatedly called them to report such nonsense.

That wouldn't seem reasonable given that the laws state that the director "should" be called.

You seem to want the laws to say something they don't.

[barmar]

So you really think the intent is that the director should be called whenever there's an incomplete designation, so he can decide which card to play based on 46B?

As I mentioned earlier, I've never heard anyone use "play" except when dummy is following suit. So the part of 46B5 about not specifying a suit seems vacuous, since the suit is implied. So effectively declarer has only omitted the rank, which makes 46B2 the Law to apply.

[Cascade]

barmar, on 2011-December-10, 23:26, said:

So you really think the intent is that the director should be called whenever there's an incomplete designation, so he can decide which card to play based on 46B?

It seems pretty clear

Quote

“should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not
often penalized)

then see L46A and L9B1a.

Pay particular attention to the use of "should".

[blackshoe]

46B exists because, I suspect, it has always been very common for declarers to violate 46A. When it is clear that a particular provision of 46B applies, there should really be no need to call the TD, although doing so is perfectly legal. However, when there is any doubt at all in the mind of any player what's going on, calling the TD is definitely the thing to do, because it is up to him, not the players, which part of 46B to apply.

[bluejak]

There is no doubt a certain type of person, personified by Victor Mollo in the form of the Secretary Bird, whose complete and utter dependence on following rules to the letter seems perfectly reasonable to him, and makes him a complete pain in the behind to everyone else. Such people are part of the reason why bridge is less popular than it might be.

Fortunately, the aim of these forums is not to try and make bridge less enjoyable for the majority, but to run bridge in a reasonable fashion. Also fortunately, the WBFLC, for all their other faults, also seem to have realised this, not including automatic penalties for stupid little infractions of Law.

Fortunately also TDs around the world are more interested in running a reasonable game of bridge and not encouraging the Secretary Birds of this world to destroy the game.

As a matter of Law, if a player’s designation is understood, then it stands, whether Secretary Birds like it or not. Since people say "play" to mean play the lowest card, then their intention is incontrovertible when they do, so as a matter of law the lowest card has been asked for.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2011-December-12, 10:01, said:

Fortunately also TDs around the world are more interested in running a reasonable game of bridge and not encouraging the Secretary Birds of this world to destroy the game.

Your whole post, from which I only quoted one sentence, is on topic and right-on; even though I still will insert my little campaign against "Play", on occasion.

However, off-topic a bit, is the fact that there are two types of Secretary Bird situations. And TD's can really only deal with the type discussed in this thread.

TD's around the world are hamstrung when SB's use the wording of regulations to get away with stuff, such as non-disclosure.

[Zelandakh]

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.

And I often say "Yes please" to ask for a singleton to be played. Is anyone going to be offended by this too. However, the worst suggestion in this thread by far has come from Wayne - a diamond is led and dummy has the HQ and the DQ - declarer calls for the queen. Since dummy cannot revoke it is clear which card has been called for. If partner asked which more than once I would be inclined to tell them to try using their brain once in a while and pay attention to the game.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2012-January-02, 08:52, said:

And I often say "Yes please" to ask for a singleton to be played. Is anyone going to be offended by this too. However, the worst suggestion in this thread by far has come from Wayne - a diamond is led and dummy has the HQ and the DQ - declarer calls for the queen. Since dummy cannot revoke it is clear which card has been called for. If partner asked which more than once I would be inclined to tell them to try using their brain once in a while and pay attention to the game.

46B3b seems clear on that case. It says dummy must play "a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so". He can't play ♥Q legally, so must play ♦Q.

[Zelandakh]

Cascade, on 2011-December-10, 14:33, said:

My partners are used to me waiting for a complete designation or occasionally me asking "Which queen?"

barmar, on 2012-January-03, 09:46, said:

46B3b seems clear on that case. It says dummy must play "a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so". He can't play ♥Q legally, so must play ♦Q.

That is precisely the point. The phrase "Which queen?" here is completely superfluous since "Queen" is a perfectly legal and complete designation. Similarly "Play" or "Yes, please" are complete designations when dummy has a singleton in the suit led. If it is universally understood to have that meaning in a given club (it is not around here afaik), "Play" [the smallest] is a complete designation for any lead where dummy can follow suit in the same way as "Diamond" is an adequate designation for "Smallest diamond" without any further requirement for a specific rank designation.

[blackshoe]

You're overlooking, I think, the fact that the only legally correct designation is "queen of diamonds" (see Law 46A). Any other designation is by law incomplete or erroneous. Yes, even if a diamond is led.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-04, 09:54, said:

You're overlooking, I think, the fact that the only legally correct designation is "queen of diamonds" (see Law 46A). Any other designation is by law incomplete or erroneous. Yes, even if a diamond is led.

A more accurate depiction includes "diamond queen" when speaking of "the only".

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2012-January-04, 10:29, said:

A more accurate depiction includes "diamond queen" when speaking of "the only".

Sheesh. Pedant much?

[CSGibson]

reviving somewhat an older discussion - but at one point when I was playing a few years ago, a partner of mine told me that if I actually named a specific rank and designation (spade eight!), that it was easier for opponents to remember the spot cards which were in dummy. Since then, I've gotten in the habit of calling cards in an umambiguous way, but without specifically naming the spot used.

[gnasher]

CSGibson, on 2012-June-06, 09:21, said:

reviving somewhat an older discussion - but at one point when I was playing a few years ago, a partner of mine told me that if I actually named a specific rank and designation (spade eight!), that it was easier for opponents to remember the spot cards which were in dummy. Since then, I've gotten in the habit of calling cards in an umambiguous way, but without specifically naming the spot used.

You should get out of that habit immediately. Law 46A begins "When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card."

If you break this law out of laziness or ignorance, that's no big deal. But, now that you know that it's against the rules, doing so in order to gain an advantage would be a big deal.

Edit: Perhaps I should add that, like everyone I know, I break this law all the time. However, I don't believe that it brings me any advantage. In matters of this sort, intent is important.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-June-06, 10:08

[RMB1]

CSGibson, on 2012-June-06, 09:21, said:

reviving somewhat an older discussion - but at one point when I was playing a few years ago, a partner of mine told me that if I actually named a specific rank and designation (spade eight!), that it was easier for opponents to remember the spot cards which were in dummy. Since then, I've gotten in the habit of calling cards in an umambiguous way, but without specifically naming the spot used.

I don't get this at all. At bridge the only things you do that should be to your advantage should be your choice of calls and plays. Everything else: how you make your calls or plays, now you explain, how you interact with the opponents, etc. should not disadvantage your opponents; and in most cases should err on the side of being helpful to the opponents.