[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2013-November-25, 16:56, said:

Any resemblance to persons or events, real or imaginary, in any of my posts is purely coincidental. The hypothetical South, described as a sharp operator quick to exploit weak players, called for a "small diamond" in order to attempt to deceive, because the OP implies that he did, and I confirm that he did. However, proving intent is irrelevant, as "could have been aware" is enough.

"Could have been aware" is so very broad that I have to wonder - when could a player painted as you have painted south possibly not have been aware?

This strikes me as an awful lot like a foregone conclusion: you set South up. He must be guilty, you say, and then ask us if he's guilty. What is your point? That the law is flawed? Maybe it is. So now what?

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2013-November-25, 06:18, said:

You could argue that no motorist should be prosecuted for driving between 70 mph and 80 mph in the UK, because everyone does it. The solution is to change the Law. But then you will argue that no motorist should be prosecuted for driving between 80 mph and 90 mph because everyone does it ...

I thought that there was a suggestion that the speed limit be raised to 80 but that enforcement would be very strict.

iviehoff, on 2013-November-25, 10:46, said:

The difference is that calling "small" as a way of designating the smallest card in a suit is essentially harmless and should be legalised, rather than the curious situation of being officially defined as an irregularity but then given an official interpretation because everyone does it all the time.

......

Now if someone is complaining that a player is deliberately changing his mode of designation from card to card to disconcert or distract an opponent, then that is a realistic complaint.

Yes and yes.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-25, 19:28, said:

"Could have been aware" is so very broad that I have to wonder - when could a player painted as you have painted south possibly not have been aware?

This strikes me as an awful lot like a foregone conclusion: you set South up. He must be guilty, you say, and then ask us if he's guilty. What is your point? That the law is flawed? Maybe it is. So now what?

I suspected that what dburn correctly regards as the "machination" of South would be viewed differently by the majority on this forum, and I was right. The purpose was twofold; to establish how TDs would rule if the situation as described occurred (and we assume the facts are as reported) and to decide if the Law should be changed. Yes, "could have been aware" is broad. If West had not covered the ten of diamonds, and declarer had then finessed the jack of diamonds, and called "small diamond" when dummy now had the ace and king remaining, and a brain-dead East still thought this was going to be ruffed and therefore discarded, I would rule that declarer "could not have been aware" that the technical breach of 46A could gain.

Actually the Law as it stands copes very well with this case, in that adjustments for infractions of 46A are only made if a player could have been aware that the infraction would gain. Perhaps it should just remain as it is.

[iviehoff]

lamford, on 2013-November-26, 06:56, said:

Actually the Law as it stands copes very well with this case, in that adjustments for infractions of 46A are only made if a player could have been aware that the infraction would gain. Perhaps it should just remain as it is.

It seems to me that if calling a card using "small" were not considered an irregularity, we wouldn't be calling for a change in the law to change it back to avoid the scandal of these machinations you refer to. When the J and the 6 are equal rank, playing the six may confuse a dopey opponent who hasn't been paying attention to the spots. We agree it is a legal ploy. When I routinely call for the smaller card by "small", it is far from clear that makes any difference to the success of that legal ploy, except in the mind of a foolish player who mistakes "small" for "loser". But I really don't see why I shold have any responsibility for such follies. There are legion other silly mistakes a player may make, which may in part be activated by some other random elements of opponents' entirely legal procedures, but the opponents have no responsibility for that. For example, it is entirely legal for me to take some time to think at the start of the hand - it says so in the laws: a foolish player may think I have something to think about at T1. He has no chance of redress because it is protected by law, even if I sometimes don't delay in play at T1 because maybe the whole hand is easy. If that procedure were merely customary rather than protected by law, would I then have some responsibility to him if he claimed to have been fooled by it? A director who so ruled would not be doing the game a favour.

I do not propose to remove the propriety that says procedure should be uniform.

[billw55]

lamford, on 2013-November-25, 16:56, said:

Any resemblance to persons or events, real or imaginary, in any of my posts is purely coincidental. The hypothetical South, described as a sharp operator quick to exploit weak players, called for a "small diamond" in order to attempt to deceive, because the OP implies that he did, and I confirm that he did. However, proving intent is irrelevant, as "could have been aware" is enough.

I get all that. You invent scenarios and specify the circumstances. I was just wondering what you meany by "I was that soldier". Perhaps this is a British turn of speech that my American perception does not parse?

[StevenG]

billw55, on 2013-November-26, 08:36, said:

I get all that. You invent scenarios and specify the circumstances. I was just wondering what you meany by "I was that soldier". Perhaps this is a British turn of speech that my American perception does not parse?

I think a reference to the nauseating "Deck of Cards"
http://www.metrolyri...martindale.html

[ggwhiz]

lamford, on 2013-November-26, 06:56, said:

Yes, "could have been aware" is broad.

Hypothetical though it is we have a "known sharp operator" and presumably a Director that knows it. I think that any possible personality conflict (assuming the Director has one ) should be even the remotest possibility in a subjective ruling sucks and don't imagine for an instant that Directors want that kind of burden.

I have found these hypotheticals interesting but they make me think so cut it out.

[paulhuggin]

Quote

You miss the point. Redress is only provided in the rare cases where varying from 46A could work to one's advantage. There was a hand on here in which declarer received a lead of the two of spades in a heart contract. Dummy had KJx and declarer stiff queen. Declarer called for "any" from dummy, because he knew the two of spades was not a singleton, but RHO did not, and declarer just needed one pitch not two. The consensus on this forum was that "any", rather than specifying the card, was a breach of 46A and should be punished. I recall a leading European TD thinking it merited a PP. I shall reconstruct the whole hand if this is not clear. It would be good to have three or four threads on the same subject until barmar cries "enough!".

Quote

The problem is that they are explicitly forbidden by the laws; IMO they shouldn't be. Law 46A says "When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card," and "should" is defined to mean that failure to do so is an infraction.

But 46B1 states standard interpretations of incomplete calls for a card and terms like "low", "small" etc mean the lowest card in the suit led as per section c, so anyone should be able to tell which card is being called for. And do we really want to stop people calling for "small please"? I agree that coffee housing is reprehensible but the most sensible solutions are either a) force everyone to always call for a specific rank and suit b) make sure people always use the same style of designation in their play (ie they always call "small" or similar when requesting the lowest card in a suit from dummy) - that way they can't be accused of seeking an advantage from that particular play. Lamford's example of "any" with KJx in dummy and singleton Q in hand is different as that is deliberately introducing ambiguity into RHO's mind about which card to play, more so than calling for a specific card.

[Fluffy]

There was an old tale of a famous player cashing top trumps to be able oto discard dummy's ♣2 from ♣AQJ1098762, later he would play ♣A and low club discarding a loser knowin RHO was weak and held ♣K from the bidding.