[blackshoe]

'THE STANDARD OF PROOF IS "OVERWHELMING."'


Not according to the law.

[nige1]

iviehoff, on 2013-November-26, 16:37, said:

You are swimming against the tide, Nige, to try and make calling "small" sufficiently illegal that it becomes rare, and it is quite pointless to attempt to do so because it isn't ambiguous. It strikes me as no more complicated than the current law to specify meanings that the law already goes to the trouble of interpreting, but making them regular rather than irregular. But only unambiguous terminology is to be regular, ambigious stuff is to remain irregular.

I argue for simpler Bridge rules that players can more easily understand and directors can more consistently enforce. I'm convinced it's right to swim against the tide of Increasing legal sophistication and greater rewards for law-breakers. I suppose however that it might be an improvement to legalise currently illegal designations when most posters here seem reluctant to rule against those infractions in any circumstances

[Trinidad]

iviehoff, on 2013-November-26, 08:57, said:

This does not achieve the point that has been made in the other thread, which is that it should not be irregular to use terms like "small" and "top", etc. when their meaning is unambiguous. We do not want only the stuck-up and pompous suit and rank designation to be regular designation, we want perfectly clear normal designations that normal ethical players routinely use to be regular designations too. So what we need is something that says that the words "small" and "top" and other unambiguous words are acceptable ways of designating rank in situations where their meaning is unambiguous. Further that it is an acceptable designation to omit the suit when following suit, provided dummy has a card to follow. "Ruff" and "trump" are acceptable ways of designating the trump suit provided dummy has one and is void in the suit led (or in fact trumps were led). "Play" and "follow" are acceptable ways of designating a singleton to be played when following suit.

We should really only be saying something is an incomplete designation when it really is ambiguous, and needs to have an official interpretation imposed upon it. We could make "follow" or "play" a synonym for "small" when there is more than one card in the suit, but I think really it is ambiguous and ought to be taken as incomplete and given that interpretion.

While I agree with your general sentiment, I think the law should be far more general. Remember that the Laws are written in English and then translated. If you would have a list of words that mean "small" this means that there needs to be a list in every language. It is said that the Eskimos have 20 words for snow. The amount of terms that are used to designate "a small card" varies from language to language.

As an aside, even designations for cards vary from language to language. In some languages one would use the construction "[Suit] [Rank]", whereas in English (and French, and others) the construction is "[Rank] of [Suit]". This already has funny consequences. In English, a designation "Spade" would be considered "finished", because a complete designation would start with the words "Three of...". In Dutch or Swedish, a designation "Spade.." would not be considered finished, since any correct designation will start by naming the suit. I have seen this at work in real life:

My wife and I were kibitzing at an "Observation tournament" (to select the national team) where a Swedish pair met Manoppo-Lasut from Indonesia. Some of the observation tournaments have international stars flown in as sparring partners. The tournament language is English.

The Swedish dummy needed to take a bathroom break and my wife was asked to fill in as dummy in a spade contract. At trick 3 or 4 declarer needed to lead a card from dummy and he said: "Spade". My wife proceeded to take the smallest spade and declarer panicked and said "ACE!".*

My wife looked somewhat helpless at the opponents and then replaced the small spade by the ace. No one objected, the game continued and declarer went one down. Then, as he put his cards back in the slot, one of the Indonesians turned to my wife and said: "If he would have played it as you told him, he would have made it."

Rik

*In this particular case, there was little doubt in my mind that this was a "change of mind" by declarer. However, it could have been a case where declarer genuinely intended to play the ace of spades and English speaking opponents would consider it an obvious change of mind. (I do not know what construction is used in Bahasa Indonesia. )

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on 2013-November-27, 04:26, said:

(I do not know what construction is used in Bahasa Indonesia. )

As sekop, similar to the English "Ace of Spades".

[blackshoe]

Interesting point, Rik, but...

English is the language of the game. In international competitions, I would think we should go with that. In national or lower level competitions, the language of the host nation should govern, unless the CoC say otherwise. If I read you correctly, that Swedish tournament specified English. So the question gets complicated. Not only do you have to worry about how much leeway you should give to non-native speakers of the "official" language, or to those who don't speak it at all, you have to worry about how the TD who doesn't speak the players' language is supposed to figure out if a player normally puts the suit or the card first. It's certainly simpler, although possibly not more fair, to just say "X is the language of the tournament, and its structure (card first or suit first, or whatever else may be pertinent) governs".

[barmar]

axman, on 2013-November-26, 14:33, said:

Notably, when declarer says, ‘anything’ it is a command telling dummy to collaborate in declaring the hand.

I don't know about other people, but I only say "anything" when dummy's cards have become irrelevant. Dummy can collaborate all he wants, it won't affect the results. And I'll happily allow the defenders to choose the cards if they want.

[Zelandakh]

Is there not a very simple way of achieving this by simply splitting the forms that we wish to allow (46B1 and 46B2, say) from those that we wish to discourage? So:

Law 46 – Incomplete or Erroneous Call of a Card from Dummy
A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card
When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card or use one of the forms described in 46B.

B.
1. [a] If declarer in playing from dummy calls “high”, "top" or words of like meaning, the highest card is deemed to have been called.
...[b] If he calls “low”, "small" or words of like meaning, the lowest card is deemed to have been called.
2. If declarer designates a suit but not a rank, the lowest card of the suit indicated is deemed to have been called.

C. Incomplete or Erroneous Call
In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following interpretations apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):
1. If he directs dummy to “win” the trick, the lowest card that it is known will win the trick is deemed to have been called.
2. If declarer designates a rank but not a suit
....[a] In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick, provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit.
....[b] In all other cases declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so. If there are two or more such cards that can be legally played, declarer must designate which is intended.
3. If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card.
4. 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.


But I cannot believe that any real TD would rule in the way lamford has suggested so a change is basically unnecessary. I am much more concerned by the unnecessarily sexist language within this law. Converting all the "he is deemed" to passive language costs nothing here. The grammar should also be applied more consistently across the clauses.

[Vampyr]

iviehoff, on 2013-November-26, 08:57, said:

So what we need is something that says that the words "small" and "top" and other unambiguous words are acceptable ways of designating rank in situations where their meaning is unambiguous. Further that it is an acceptable designation to omit the suit when following suit, provided dummy has a card to follow. "Ruff" and "trump" are acceptable ways of designating the trump suit provided dummy has one and is void in the suit led (or in fact trumps were led).

Quite.

Quote

"Play" and "follow" are acceptable ways of designating a singleton to be played when following suit.

Oh, but please not "play"! There is someone against whom I play regularly has taken to using this as a designation, and it drives me absolutely nuts. Besides, doesn't "play" go without saying? Doesn't "small diamond" mean "play a small diamond"? I would prefer that "play" meant "play anything" and allow the defenders to choose.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2013-November-27, 10:21, said:

Oh, but please not "play"! There is someone against whom I play regularly has taken to using this as a designation, and it drives me absolutely nuts. Besides, doesn't "play" go without saying? Doesn't "small diamond" mean "play a small diamond"? I would prefer that "play" meant "play anything" and allow the defenders to choose.

Doesn't "follow" also go without saying (assuming dummy has a card of the suit led)? Why allow one but not the other?

"Play" could be equivalent to "small" when dummy has a card of the suit, and "anything" when he doesn't.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-November-27, 10:28, said:

Doesn't "follow" also go without saying (assuming dummy has a card of the suit led)? Why allow one but not the other?

"Follow" is not great, but I have not had the misfortune of hearing it used more than extremely rarely. It does seem to be short for "follow suit", though, which does usually mean with a small card.

Quote

"Play" could be equivalent to "small" when dummy has a card of the suit, and "anything" when he doesn't.

Sure, it could be equivalent to "small", but it should be stamped out because it is ***** annoying.

I once played with an American friend who has this habit. Every time he said "play" I asked "which one?", until eventually he cut it out.

[mycroft]

mycroft, on 2013-November-26, 11:32, said:

(both from the ACBL tech files - which I do realize don't apply outside the ACBL, but that's where I rule).

blackshoe, on 2013-November-26, 20:29, said:

'THE STANDARD OF PROOF IS "OVERWHELMING."'

Not according to the law.

Am I invisible again?

Edit: if the implication is that this is something that *shouldn't* be left to the ZO to determine, then fine. I disagree, but fine.

[WellSpyder]

mycroft, on 2013-November-27, 11:01, said:

Am I invisible again?

Anyone got a recording of the song "Mr Cellophane" from the musical "Chicago" that we could insert here for mycroft?

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2013-November-27, 04:26, said:

While I agree with your general sentiment, I think the law should be far more general. Remember that the Laws are written in English and then translated. If you would have a list of words that mean "small" this means that there needs to be a list in every language. It is said that the Eskimos have 20 words for snow. The amount of terms that are used to designate "a small card" varies from language to language.

As an aside, even designations for cards vary from language to language. In some languages one would use the construction "[Suit] [Rank]", whereas in English (and French, and others) the construction is "[Rank] of [Suit]". This already has funny consequences. In English, a designation "Spade" would be considered "finished", because a complete designation would start with the words "Three of...". In Dutch or Swedish, a designation "Spade.." would not be considered finished, since any correct designation will start by naming the suit. I have seen this at work in real life:

My wife and I were kibitzing at an "Observation tournament" (to select the national team) where a Swedish pair met Manoppo-Lasut from Indonesia. Some of the observation tournaments have international stars flown in as sparring partners. The tournament language is English.

The Swedish dummy needed to take a bathroom break and my wife was asked to fill in as dummy in a spade contract. At trick 3 or 4 declarer needed to lead a card from dummy and he said: "Spade". My wife proceeded to take the smallest spade and declarer panicked and said "ACE!".*

My wife looked somewhat helpless at the opponents and then replaced the small spade by the ace. No one objected, the game continued and declarer went one down. Then, as he put his cards back in the slot, one of the Indonesians turned to my wife and said: "If he would have played it as you told him, he would have made it."

Rik

*In this particular case, there was little doubt in my mind that this was a "change of mind" by declarer. However, it could have been a case where declarer genuinely intended to play the ace of spades and English speaking opponents would consider it an obvious change of mind. (I do not know what construction is used in Bahasa Indonesia. )

Certainly not, unless the word "spade" was followed by a distinct pause - clearly terminating the call.

But even such a pause could simply indicate that the player has decided to play one of the spades but not yet which. This would have the same effect as a chess player touching the piece he intends to move while still considering where he wants to move it.

In the Scandinavian languages we never designate a card with the rank preceding the denomination.

(But we do say "small", "high" or similar words preceding the denomination, e.g. : "small spade", "high spade", "spade two", "spade ace" etc,)

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2013-November-26, 11:32, said:

....(both from the ACBL tech files - which I do realize don't apply outside the ACBL, but that's where I rule).

I merely serve there.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2013-November-27, 10:15, said:

1. If he directs dummy to “win” the trick, the lowest card that it is known will win the trick is deemed to have been called.

I just figured out what bothers me about this. Suppose declarer's LHO leads the 10 of some suit. Dummy has KJxx. Dummy (the player) has no idea where the A or Q are. Declarer says "win it". For which card has he called? Perhaps the law needs to tell Dummy, when he is not sure what declarer wants, to say "clarify, please" or some such. Yes, we do that now, but some day some SB is going to claim dummy is "participating in the play" by doing so.

All that said I agree that a change is basically unnecessary. I don't agree with the drive to eliminate "sexist" constructs from the English language. If it happens, it happens, but the religious fervor with which some (and I'm not including Zel in that group) approach it could IMO be better directed to other things. Personally, I like David Weber's approach: he writes science fiction, and his characters, 2000 years from now, use "she" as the neutral pronoun if they are themselves female, and "he" if they're male. Seems a workable compromise.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-27, 08:27, said:

Interesting point, Rik, but...

English is the language of the game.

No. It isn't.

I readily admit that English is the world language at the moment in general. I admit that the Laws are written by the WBF in English. And, of course, I think it is a good idea to communicate in English during international tournaments, as well as the Swedish observation tournaments (for selection in international tournaments).

But that is where it stops. English is NOT the language of bridge. Bridge doesn't have a language, other than things like suit symbols and a couple of numbers, similar to the "language" of Mathematics or Chemistry.

If you come and play bridge in the Netherlands or Sweden or Germany or anywhere... you are welcome. We will speak the best English we can... but we do that because we want to be good hosts and want to accommodate you. Don't make the silly mistake of thinking that you are entitled to this because English would be the language of bridge. If you would be French, we would speak the best French we can.

In the mean time our bridge (e.g. convention cards) will be in Dutch, Swedish, German or Anywherian. These local languages will have their own bridge terms or they will be predominantly borrowed from French (e.g. the names of the denominations, including sans atout, and words like honneur and manche).

Compared to the rest of today's world, which is dominated by the English language in virtually every aspect, bridge is very much free of English.

Rik

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2013-November-27, 12:01, said:

Certainly not, unless the word "spade" was followed by a distinct pause - clearly terminating the call.

It was ...
....
....
otherwise I (as someone who speaks Swedish, I lived in Stockholm at the time) wouldn't have called it a change of mind.

But it was a case where in Swedish declarer could make a case for the TD that he was just very slow in his pronunciation. I wouldn't call it a credible case, but no doubt one could find a few TDs who would have believed him. In English, it just looked plain ridiculous (particularly since the other designations were in the correct English format of Rank of Suit).

As a "Pseudo-Swede", I felt embarrassed by this. The remark after the hand by the Indonesian player was clearly made for two reasons: to cheer up my embarrassed wife (who played for the dummy) and to put declarer "in his place".

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2013-November-27, 13:17, said:

If you come and play bridge in the Netherlands or Sweden or Germany or anywhere... you are welcome. We will speak the best English we can... but we do that because we want to be good hosts and want to accommodate you. Don't make the silly mistake of thinking that you are entitled to this because English would be the language of bridge. If you would be French, we would speak the best French we can.

Perhaps you should think a bit before you jump all over me. I did say that in national or lower level competitions the language of the host nation should govern. I've been to many non-English speaking countries, and lived in some. I've never expected, in any country, people to speak English just because I do. And I appreciate it when they speak English because I don't speak their language. So your umbrage is misplaced.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2013-November-27, 11:01, said:

Am I invisible again?

Edit: if the implication is that this is something that *shouldn't* be left to the ZO to determine, then fine. I disagree, but fine.

No, you're not invisible. Why would you think that?

The standard of proof in the laws of bridge is "preponderance of the evidence" (see Law 85). To jump from that to "overwhelming", which is much stronger than "beyond a reasonable doubt", in the sole case of whether a designation was inadvertent strikes me as a clear case of overkill, and possibly one which only exists because of the annoyance of someone with some clout. That is not the way to make the rules of a game (or anything else, for that matter). Aside from that, what should one accept as "overwhelming" proof? Frankly, I can't think of anything.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2013-November-27, 04:26, said:

While I agree with your general sentiment, I think the law should be far more general. Remember that the Laws are written in English and then translated. If you would have a list of words that mean "small" this means that there needs to be a list in every language. It is said that the Eskimos have 20 words for snow. The amount of terms that are used to designate "a small card" varies from language to language.

Yes, the law could be more general, or leave it up to each NBO to determine what terms in their language name a card unambiguously.

I wonder what the practice in other countries is when following suit in dummy with small cards. Here the designation is often "mmm".