[blml] Réf. : played or not?

[Eric Landau]

On Aug 8, 2007, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> ton schrieb:
>>
>> This is an interesting case, which means that I do not have a  
>> clear answer.
>>
>
> neither do I... :-)
> But to quote another BLML member: how do we want the game to be  
> played?
>
>> I do not join Grattan when he says that in this case no suit was  
>> indicated.
>> When declarer thinks to play in diamonds and asks to ruff he  
>> indicates the
>> diamond suit. How can that be ignored?
>>
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that every director wants a declarer who
> doesn`t know what the contract is to pay for that, as every  
> director is
> also a player, and players are pissed off when opp does something  
> stupid
> and gets away with it. The problem is that we cannot do it  
> consistently,
> as some declarers will tell us what they intended and others will not
> (or lie about it). We would scare off the naive ones, and send the  
> wrong
> message to the honest ones. Seems wrong to me. We can be  
> consistent, but
> that lets declarer get away from a stupid error.
>
> So how should the next laws read?
>
> Option A: Find a way to define the card that is deemed to have been
> called for. Suit to dummy`s right, first suit named by declarer,  
> dummy`s
> longest suit, whatever. Consistent, but quite random, not always  
> looking
> very fair to the players. Yesterday evening declarer thought he was
> playing hearts, which lay on the wrong side of dummy to be trumps. NT
> contract, of course. This only came up when the score was to be
> determined (and after defenders accepted a claim....). This would be
> teriibly unwieldy or rerribly random or both.
>
> Option B: Leave it to the TD`s judgement to determine whether a  
> card can
> be identified as the one declarer wanted to be played, and rule that
> card played, or - if unable to do so - rule no card to have been  
> played
> and let declarer name whatever he wants.
> This is more likely to let the players feel that "justice" has been
> done, but will sometimes be controversial. Some clause should  
> define the
> room for judgement (not easy to do), but clearly empower the TD to use
> judgement.
>
> Option C: Rule call of card not in dummy in all cases. This has the  
> big
> advantage of being consistent, but lets declarer off some hooks.
>
>> When declarer does play 4 hearts and asks to ruff will anybody  
>> ever ask him
>> with what suit?
>>
>> But then he can't ruff so what gets priority? If you say he  
>> indicated the
>> lowest diamond you know what to do. If you say he asked for a card  
>> which is
>> not in dummy, one with trumping quality, so winning the trick that  
>> means,
>> you also know what to do.
>>
> Looks like Ton would vote for option B here. So would I. But  
> hundreds of
> less experienced (or self-assured) directors would want either A or C,
> because it lets the director off the hook. Personally I could live  
> with
> C (Consistency!), but A looks completely unworkable to me. A very
> cursory draft of such a rule left me with several ifs, buts and
> whereases, leading to confusion and much waste of paper.
>
> For what it`s worth I think the current rules say C, but I could be
> convinced otherwise, maybe because I want to be talked into B.

What is this "hook" Matthias refers to?  If declarer has reached this  
point thinking he is playing in some other denomination than the  
contracted one, that will almost always be to the defenders' benefit,  
and can never help declarer.  Are the defenders entitled to more than  
that, to the equivalent of declarer "playing out" the entire  
remainder of the hand not knowing the contract?  That's what's  
suggested by "letting declarer off the hook".

If declarer calls for a club when there is no club in dummy, we know  
what to do.  If declarer calls for a trump when there is no trump in  
dummy, why should we handle it completely differently?


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net