[blml] British bridge terminology

[Jean-Pierre Rocafort]

Brian a écrit :
> 
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:08:34 +0200
> Jean-Pierre Rocafort <jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr> wrote:
> 
>> it's not what i meant. i agree to see ruff and trump as equivalent:
>> both are irregularities in reference to L46A. the appearence of the
>> word "suit" in the definition of "trump" doesn't make a suit of
>> trump. 
> 
> And there's our difference. I would argue that it does exactly that for
> the duration of a single hand played in a suit contract. Judging by
> what I have read on BLML, I'm far from being the only one with
> that point of view. 

i agree to be in a minority. my reading of the definitions of "suit" and 
"trump" makes me think trump is no a suit but, under certain 
circonstances, a temporary propriety of some suit.
> 
> 
>> in order to know what are the elements of the set "suits" i
>> think we need to see the definition of "suit", in which there are
>> only 4 elements. i agree the use of trump will seldom make any
>> difference but sometimes it will and i think the wording of L46A is
>> accurate. sometimes the use of "trump" could be a mess: declarer is
>> mistaken about the contract or dummy is not paying attention and
>> doesn't play the card declarer asked. 
> 
> We know how to deal with dummy playing the wrong card, that's easy. Law
> 45D. 
exact but it causes inconveniences and they would be avoided if common 
usage didn't go against L46A which is designed to limit inconveniences 
to the strict minimum.
> 
> If declarer is in a suit contract then "trump" names the trump suit. If
> "trump" is all he says, Law 46B2 applies. 
L46B is a law designed to rectify irregularities. the less we have to 
use it, the better.
> 
> If declarer is in NT, then "trump" is just a noise, and the
> whole attempted designation is invalid and is ignored. 
maybe, but if we could educate players to avoid useless noises that 
consume time, nerves, saliva, bandwidth...
> 
>> the same can be said about the
>> rank. it seldom makes any difference when declarer doesn't name it
>> and players mechanically apply L46B but sometimes... once piotr
>> gawrys was declarer in a desperate NT contract. the lead was in dummy
>> who had something like KQ875 in spades without any further entry and
>> rho J943, and no other spades in both other hands. he called high
>> spade (dummy played K, rho 3), then "spade" and rho carelessly played
>> the 4, unable to imagine declarer playing anything other than Q. this
>> was reported as a clever play from gawrys. it would not have been
>> successfull if he had called "5 of spades". who is to blame?
>> declarer, rho, L46, common usage?
>>
> 
> RHO takes at least a large chunk of the blame. If I understand you
> correctly, he's played out of turn, i.e. without seeing dummy's card
> actually be played.
it was not out of turn, according to L45B, unless i failed to understand 
the meaning of "after which".

> The suit of KQ875 is manifestly not a solid suit, so
> any provisions about playing from the top down (it's in the EBU
> regulations, or at least, it was) don't apply, and RHO has no business
> assuming that it was a high spade that was played. Declarer is deemed to
> have named the lowest card of the suit, Law 46B2.
agreed

> If RHO genuinely
> doesn't know this, then he's going nowhere against the likes of Gawrys
> anyway. 
> 
> 
> The more interesting question is whether declarer was seeking to profit
> from a deliberate irregularity. I admit right now that I'd hate to be
> faced with this one. :-) Law 46 does deal with irregularities in
> procedure, at least according to the English section title, so the
> naming of the suit only *is* an irregularity, albeit a very common one. 
> 
> The easy part first - RHO keeps his score. His fault for not paying
> attention and/or not waiting for a card to be played from dummy and/or
> not knowing the rules of the game he's playing. 
> 
> 
> I think that if I was convinced that declarer had done this
> deliberately in an attempt to get opponent to make an error, then I'm
> going to hit declarer with a PP for infringing Law 72B2, and the PP
> will be as close as I can get to (but NOT less than) the amount needed
> so that declarer gets the score he was most likely to get if he'd named
> the card correctly, and RHO hadn't been deceived.
he will tell you that he never names the rank, that all his fellows do 
likewise, that it's common usage
> 
> Yes, I would expect all hell to break loose after this decision. :-).
> That's life. How did I do against what actually happened (I'd not heard
> the story before)? 
score stands. rho was laughed at. i don't remember very well. i read the 
report in a bridge magazine and i think it was about 15 years ago in an 
invitational individual tournament. maybe somebody can give more precise 
information

jpr
> 
> 
> Brian. 
> 
-- 
_______________________________________________
Jean-Pierre Rocafort
METEO-FRANCE
DSI/CM
42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis
31057 Toulouse CEDEX
Tph: 05 61 07 81 02      (33 5 61 07 81 02)
Fax: 05 61 07 81 09      (33 5 61 07 81 09)
e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr

Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr
_______________________________________________