[weejonnie]

manudude03, on 2017-February-23, 17:40, said:

It seems it would just be so much easier if "win it" means to play the highest card available. Besides, in the OP, the SB might have obtained a full count if he was playing it, but how does he know declarer isn't 4333 rather than 3343 and as such East might have a stiff diamond?

As such, I would say -1 in the OP and making in the second example, both cases with a PP.

I still don't know why there is a PP - SB is applying exactly a plausible interpretation of the laws.

Another possible wording could be

"If declarer calls 'win it' then dummy plays the lowest card in the suit led that might win the trick."

[1eyedjack]

weejonnie, on 2017-February-24, 03:33, said:

Another possible wording could be

"If declarer calls 'win it' then dummy plays the lowest card in the suit led that might win the trick."

I don't think that it is plausible that dummy can play a card that might not win the trick if he has been given the unambiguous instruction to win it. Mind you, what he should play if there is no winning card is another interesting question.

[weejonnie]

1eyedjack, on 2017-February-24, 07:18, said:

I don't think that it is plausible that dummy can play a card that might not win the trick if he has been given the unambiguous instruction to win it. Mind you, what he should play if there is no winning card is another interesting question.

In the examples given - suppose dummy has "AQT84" of diamonds and a small diamond is led and covered. e.g. the 2 with the 6

"Low" - would mean "4"
"High" - would mean "A"
"Win" - would mean "8"

With regard to the interesting question

2. If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated.

Has he designated a suit with his 'win' - which means (new rules)

(b) If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit led that it is known will win the trick.

Or

4. If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void (invalid) and declarer may designate any legal card.

[barmar]

manudude03, on 2017-February-23, 17:40, said:

It seems it would just be so much easier if "win it" means to play the highest card available.

That's already available by saying "high" or similar. Are you suggesting that "win" should simply be included in that clause?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-February-24, 09:14, said:

That's already available by saying "high" or similar. Are you suggesting that "win" should simply be included in that clause?

"Win" should really be illegal, but as it is not I agree that it should be the highest card available. There is no other way it works.

[blackshoe]

"Win" is illegal. "The laws are designed to define correct procedure" and correct procedure in this case is defined in Law 46A: you call for a card in dummy by naming the suit and rank of the card. All of Law 46B is about rectification for declarer's ubiquitous infractions of Law 46A.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-24, 11:40, said:

"Win" is illegal. "The laws are designed to define correct procedure" and correct procedure in this case is defined in Law 46A: you call for a card in dummy by naming the suit and rank of the card. All of Law 46B is about rectification for declarer's ubiquitous infractions of Law 46A.

This is splitting hairs. There's no penalty for a violation of 46A if 46B says how to interpret it. It might be technically illegal, but it's de facto permitted.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-February-24, 16:13, said:

This is splitting hairs.

Whatever you say.

[Vampyr]

The important thing is to find out what "win" actually means.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-24, 11:40, said:

"Win" is illegal. "The laws are designed to define correct procedure" and correct procedure in this case is defined in Law 46A: you call for a card in dummy by naming the suit and rank of the card. All of Law 46B is about rectification for declarer's ubiquitous infractions of Law 46A.

"Win" is no more "illegal" than "small", "top", "spade", "trump" or any other designation whose meaning is dealt with in the Laws. 46A has "should" not "must". It might be a breach of correct procedure, but a survey of even top players find that both the suit and rank is rarely stated. I do not think a "sufficient" designation is ever illegal. Play the "curse of Scotland" would be illegal, however.

[lamford]

manudude03, on 2017-February-23, 17:40, said:

It seems it would just be so much easier if "win it" means to play the highest card available. Besides, in the OP, the SB might have obtained a full count if he was playing it, but how does he know declarer isn't 4333 rather than 3343 and as such East might have a stiff diamond?

As such, I would say -1 in the OP and making in the second example, both cases with a PP.

SB had a full count of the had because their agreement was that when moving on over a quantitative 4NT, RR would bid four-card suits. The fact that RR had explained it as Blackwood was UI to SB, and he also regarded that as UI in interpreting "Win". He therefore played the card that was "known" to win the trick, based on the AI he had. And he was correct, and the TD did indeed require the 8 on the first occasion and the ace on the second occasion, the card "known" to win the trick, which must be interpreted, regardless of the opinion of the ACBL, as the card "known" to win the trick based on the information available to declarer at the time. If RR had claimed in the first hand, stating "taking the marked finesse of the 8 of diamonds", how would you rule? In the second example, East is known to be exactly 6-6-1-0, and the correct card to play is also the eight (gaining on either small singleton with East), but "Win" means that dummy has to play the ace in this instance, and RR's GA comes to the rescue again.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2017-February-25, 08:23, said:

"Win" is no more "illegal" than "small", "top", "spade", "trump" or any other designation whose meaning is dealt with in the Laws. 46A has "should" not "must". It might be a breach of correct procedure, but a survey of even top players find that both the suit and rank is rarely stated. I do not think a "sufficient" designation is ever illegal. Play the "curse of Scotland" would be illegal, however.

Failure to do what one "should" do is an infraction. Hence, every designation dealt with in Law 46B is illegal. If no bridge player ever followed 46A that would not make using other designations any less illegal.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-25, 12:43, said:

Failure to do what one "should" do is an infraction. Hence, every designation dealt with in Law 46B is illegal. If no bridge player ever followed 46A that would not make using other designations any less illegal.

Then we would have 10 or 11 director calls per hand at my local club (as failure to call the TD is also an infraction), as players usually say "follow", "small" or "top", and very rarely say "two of diamonds". By my reckoning that would be 10 x 12 x 12 director calls over 12 rounds at 12 tables. A total of 1440 director calls in the evening. We would lose our premises which we are supposed to vacate by 2300 hours. "Get real" as they say ...

[blackshoe]

Failure to call the TD is only an infraction if attention is drawn to an irregularity.

[weejonnie]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-25, 15:13, said:

Failure to call the TD is only an infraction if attention is drawn to an irregularity.

Not quite true - if you are aware that you have given a misexplanation then failure to call the TD is an infraction (a serious matter indeed). (Although you will have until the end of the clarification period rather than immediately when the new laws come out). 20F4 (law 20F5 says you call the director and give a correct explanation if partner has given an incorrect explanation - but it is not clear which comes first)

[blackshoe]

okay, you got me, I neglected to dot that i.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-25, 15:13, said:

Failure to call the TD is only an infraction if attention is drawn to an irregularity.

At our club, the SB draws attention to all irregularities if it is in his interest, so, at his table at least, there could be a director call every time there is an incomplete (but sufficient) designation if he followed your approach. On this hand, he did not call the TD when RR said "win", but quickly put the 8 of diamonds in place. If he had been a defender, he would have seen the danger arising, and he would have called the TD on each of the first six tricks, when the rabbit called "king" at trick one, "spade" at trick two, "ace" at trick three, "heart" at trick four, "ace" at trick five and "club" at trick six. RR, by now, might well have specified the suit and rank of the diamond he intended, rather than say "win it", so RR's chance of success would have dropped to around 1 in 4 (as he would just have guessed which diamond to play).

Molly the Mule always gives the minimum specification, and has been doing so for seventy years. She would have irritated people by just saying "five" if she crossed to the ace of spades and continued the suit, knowing that dummy would be deemed to play the five of spades, the suit "in which" dummy won the last trick. So, every time Molly is declarer, there could be 12 director calls (or 13 if you would regard her failure to specify the rank and suit at trick 13 as also an infraction) per round. In my opinion, the TD should be called only if there is an infraction of a "must" or "may not" regulation. There I agree with you. Do you think that someone not specifying the suit, but specifying the rank of a suit that is led is an infraction? In my opinion, if the Laws cover which card is played when there is an incomplete call then the TD does not need to be called.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2017-February-26, 06:17, said:

In my opinion, the TD should be called only if there is an infraction of a "must" or "may not" regulation.

This is, as you well know, not what the law says. If attention has not been called to an irregularity, you are of course permitted to proceed without calling the director, but otherwise not calling him just adds another infraction to the pile.

lamford, on 2017-February-26, 06:17, said:

Do you think that someone not specifying the suit, but specifying the rank of a suit that is led is an infraction? In my opinion, if the Laws cover which card is played when there is an incomplete call then the TD does not need to be called.

Yes, I do, as I said upthread. Again, if no one draws attention to the irregularity, I agree there is no need to call the TD.

[WellSpyder]

It is my understanding that if declarer tells dummy to ruff when dummy has no trumps (including when the hand is being played at no trumps!) then dummy should do nothing at all. In my view, the same should apply if dummy is asked to "win" the trick but is not the last hand to play. In other words, the interpretation of "win" meaning the lowest card that takes the trick applies if and only if dummy is the last hand to play to the trick. Otherwise it has no meaning.

[Disclaimer: the last (and possibly only) time I told dummy to "win" the trick was when it held a singleton K in the suit led and an opponent had already played the A. Dummy did his best to comply with my instruction, but failed to do so.....]

[lamford]

WellSpyder, on 2017-February-27, 04:07, said:

In my view, the same should apply if dummy is asked to "win" the trick but is not the last hand to play.

Neither the old laws nor the new laws distinguish between dummy being asked to "win" the trick when not last to play. In other positions, dummy should play the lowest card "known" to win the trick. This must be the lowest card declarer knows will win the trick. How dummy is supposed to read declarer's mind is anyone's guess.