[barmar]

lamford, on 2019-April-15, 06:27, said:

In any case to interpret "and again" to mean the same thing as "the previous designation" is not logical, as that card will have been played and can no longer be in dummy.

This is why my example used a designation like "high" rather than a specific rank like "ace". As long as dummy is not void in the suit, the highest card still exists.

As I said very clearly, if the previous designation was specific about the rank, it doesn't apply (blackshoe's "other deuce" example notwithstanding, as it's intended playfully rather than literally).

[axman]

Vampyr, on 2019-April-15, 05:38, said:

Yes, I know what your example is, but you know that I am a habitual user of “and again” and you have never been in doubt as to which card I was playing.

I find your example very implausible.

It has occurred to me that phrases such as 'and again' when used as an instruction to dummy can be construed to instruct dummy to utilize judgment; in other words, can be used as a clever method of inviting dummy to participate in the play. Notably, that would be like telling dummy to do that which he is required to refrain from. And that is not a good thing. This suggests that use of 'and again' be avoided. Words like high, low, top, bottom... are definitive and hence are useful euphemisms while the former is not. Bridge offers plenty of opportunities for controversy without needlessly tossing grenades.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2019-April-15, 06:27, said:

…If "and again" specifies "ace of diamonds", then he has called for a rank not in dummy but has called for a suit that is in dummy, so he has to play the lowest diamond.

No.

Quote

Law 46B4: If declarer calls for a card that is not in dummy the call is invalid and declarer may designate any legal card.

Ace of diamonds is a card. Declarer called for that card. It's not in dummy. Ergo, 46B4 applies.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2019-April-15, 12:28, said:

No.

Ace of diamonds is a card. Declarer called for that card. It's not in dummy. Ergo, 46B4 applies.

"And again" is not a card, so whether there is an "and again" in dummy is irrelevant, so 46B4 does not apply, as it can only apply if declarer actually names the ace of diamonds in full. If you rule that 46B4 applies, then ChCh will always use "and again" as declarer as he cannot lose. If dummy plays a high diamond and East shows out, he will say "I did not call for a high diamond, and the "and again" I called for is not in dummy, and never can be as it is the card I just played". If dummy plays a low diamond and East follows with the queen, he will say, "I did not call for a low diamond and the "and again" is not in dummy ... "

With your ruling, ChCh can never lose ...

[blackshoe]

You said "if 'and again' specifies ace of diamonds. Now you say, in effect, that it does not. Make up your mind.

With your ruling, ChCh can never lose ... "

Bull.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2019-April-15, 13:04, said:

You said "if 'and again' specifies ace of diamonds. Now you say, in effect, that it does not. Make up your mind.

With your ruling, ChCh can never lose ... "

Bull.

The Bull comes from you. It is not my job to interpret "and again", it is the TD's. But even if you or I decide that it means that the intended card is the "ace of diamonds", which is no longer in dummy, to apply 46B4 would be nonsense, as that would allow the declarer to play any card. 46B4 states: "calls for a card not in dummy" rather than "makes up a sobriquet for a card not in dummy". I suggest you re-read it.

[lamford]

There was one other occasion when this board was played in 3NT, again on a heart lead, and again on a diamond to the ace. This time, declarer, an elderly gentleman with poor vision but excellent ability, called for the two of diamonds, and dummy played the three. East discarded and declarer made in the normal way. However, an alert ChCh could, if East played the queen on the second round of diamonds, have said "Dearie me, I seem to have called for a card not in dummy, but you didn't notice, partner!". He could then replace the three of diamonds with the king under Law 46B4.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2019-April-15, 16:23, said:

The Bull comes from you. It is not my job to interpret "and again", it is the TD's. But even if you or I decide that it means that the intended card is the "ace of diamonds", which is no longer in dummy, to apply 46B4 would be nonsense, as that would allow the declarer to play any card. 46B4 states: "calls for a card not in dummy" rather than "makes up a sobriquet for a card not in dummy". I suggest you re-read it.

It would seem that the only way to solve the dilemma you propose would be to ignore Law 46B completely, penalize the declarer for his violation of Law 46A, and require him to state the rank and denomination of the card he's playing from dummy. Every time. Which would result in exactly the situation you don't want.

I begin to wonder if you're playing devil's advocate with these posts, or trolling. I hope it's not the latter.

[blackshoe]

blackshoe, on 2019-April-15, 17:34, said:

It would seem that the only way to solve the dilemma you propose would be to ignore Law 46B completely, penalize the declarer for his violation of Law 46A, and require him to state the rank and denomination of the card he's playing from dummy. Every time. Which would result in exactly the situation you say you don't want.

I begin to wonder if you're playing devil's advocate with these posts, or trolling. I hope it's not the latter.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2019-April-15, 17:34, said:

It would seem that the only way to solve the dilemma you propose would be to ignore Law 46B completely, penalize the declarer for his violation of Law 46A, and require him to state the rank and denomination of the card he's playing from dummy. Every time. Which would result in exactly the situation you don't want.

I begin to wonder if you're playing devil's advocate with these posts, or trolling. I hope it's not the latter.

There is an element of devil's advocate in all my posts, which address issues that are not properly covered by the laws. Here the phrase "and again" which is often used by bridge players of all levels is absent from Law 46B, so it is up to the TD what it means. There are quite a few other ones not present like "duck", "overtake" etc. I think 46B5 is the place to go for all of these and I would allow the opponents to decide if declarer uses "and again", much for the reasons axman states, unless the TD decides that what is meant is incontrovertible. When declarer uses "heart", "top" or "ruff", these are covered, and there is no need to require him to state the rank and denomination.

[blackshoe]

And yet the laws do require him to do so.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-April-15, 21:25, said:

And yet the laws do require him to do so.

I think that is Lamford's point, and that he retains this is an issue "not properly covered by the laws".
I would agree, although I don't like his proposed solution.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2019-April-15, 21:25, said:

And yet the laws do require him to do so.

"Require" is too strong. 46A states:
When calling for a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

The introduction has: “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised)

46B covers an incomplete or invalid designation, and gives some examples. Where a specification is similar to "high", "win" or "low", there is no problem. When a statement is similar to "anything" there is no problem. The lacuna was created by the lawmakers carelessly not saying what happens when declarer uses something that is not similar to "high", "win", "low" or "anything" and which does not name a rank or suit. Where the law is silent, the TD has to rule. The most draconian is to say that "and again" is similar to "play anything" but that does not seem correct. The most favourable to declarer (normally) is that "and again" means an adjacent card in the same suit. I think that to say that "and again" means the same card that dummy has just played in the quitted trick, and therefore declarer can play any card, makes no sense and rewards declarer for a breach of proper procedure. I don't know what the correct answer is in such situations.

[blackshoe]

In the laws of bridge, “should” establishes a requirement, since failure to do it is an infraction. 46B specifies rectification for some of the ways in which 46A is violated. Nothing in 46B is correct procedure.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2019-April-16, 07:25, said:

In the laws of bridge, “should” establishes a requirement, since failure to do it is an infraction. 46B specifies rectification for some of the ways in which 46A is violated. Nothing in 46B is correct procedure.

That is agreed, but 46B establishes how we deal with incorrect procedure. It deals with some (common) errors in procedure, but is silent on others. I guess we just have to leave each breach that is not covered to individual TDs.

[blackshoe]

That is the current state of the law, yes.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2019-April-15, 18:32, said:

Here the phrase "and again" which is often used by bridge players of all levels is absent from Law 46B

Is that a British thing? I think I can honestly say I've never heard anyone use a phrase like that, except maybe in the context of having already instructed dummy to run a suit (and most RAs have guidelines that address what "run" means).

I took the incident in this thread to be an outlier, not something that comes up so often that it's a serious omission in the Laws.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2019-April-16, 09:13, said:

Is that a British thing? I think I can honestly say I've never heard anyone use a phrase like that, except maybe in the context of having already instructed dummy to run a suit (and most RAs have guidelines that address what "run" means).

I took the incident in this thread to be an outlier, not something that comes up so often that it's a serious omission in the Laws.

Vampyr admits to using it regularly, so I thought it was a US thing! I have heard it and used it when playing Blackjack in a casino, and it means "hit again", so is unambiguous there. I don't think the specific phrase matters much. Run the [suit] is common, and that is interpreted as play the same suit from the top, although again absent in the Laws. "And again" I hear most commonly when dummy is asked to lead a top card in a suit, and wants to continue with a top card in the same suit. Usually the intention is incontrovertible.

I have often heard "another diamond" in this situation, intending a top one. Usually, I let it go as a defender.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2019-April-16, 09:39, said:

Vampyr admits to using it regularly, so I thought it was a US thing! I have heard it and used it when playing Blackjack in a casino, and it means "hit again", so is unambiguous there. I don't think the specific phrase matters much. Run the [suit] is common, and that is interpreted as play the same suit from the top, although again absent in the Laws. "And again" I hear most commonly when dummy is asked to lead a top card in a suit, and wants to continue with a top card in the same suit. Usually the intention is incontrovertible.

Italians say "Continua" instead of "And again" and "Continua fino alla fine" instead of "Run the suit". They are accepted by opponents and Director alike, although occasionally dummy will hesitate and/or declarer will change his mind before the end of the suit.

[weejonnie]

pescetom, on 2019-April-16, 10:10, said:

Italians say "Continua" instead of "And again" and "Continua fino alla fine" instead of "Run the suit". They are accepted by opponents and Director alike, although occasionally dummy will hesitate and/or declarer will change his mind before the end of the suit.

The RA can specify how an instruction like "|Run the suit" means e.g. from top down, and I think general concensus is that since 'run the suit' is not a designation then it can be stopped at anytime (I think there was a memo saying 'provided RHO hasn't played a card). (Dummy hesitating is UI e.g. if it draws declarer's attention to the fact that the next card isn't actually a winner.)