[lamford]

---

On this hand from Tuesday's duplicate at a North London Club, SB was quick to take advantage of a slip by a new visitor from abroad, who did not have much English. SB cashed the two top hearts and the ace of clubs (fatally in theory), and switched to a trump won by South who cashed the ace of diamonds, ruffed a diamond, and called for the five of cœur. Dummy's French and observational skills were enough to play the five of hearts, the only five in dummy, and South ruffed that, ruffed another diamond and called "seven". Dummy continued on the same vein with the seven of hearts, but SB pounced. "That was an incomplete designation," he stated. "Dummy therefore has to lead the seven of spades, continuing the suit "in which" he won the last trick". "The law here is not that clear, but gordontd has stated it means the suit dummy ruffed the previous trick with. His different intention was not incontrovertible, as it would not be ridiculous to draw the last trump, miscounting one's tricks. I think it is one off now, is it not?" he gloated.

"DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR", he bellowed. The TD came running. "There was a breach of 46A by declarer". He continued: "There was also a breach of Law 46A (qv Law 1) two tricks ago, when declarer used "cœur" instead of "hearts", but as you know I am a reasonable chap and I let that go."

How do you rule?

[pran]

lamford, on 2017-January-14, 08:55, said:

---

On this hand from Tuesday's duplicate at a North London Club, SB was quick to take advantage of a slip by a new visitor from abroad, who did not have much English. SB cashed the two top hearts and the ace of clubs (fatally in theory), and switched to a trump won by South who cashed the ace of diamonds, ruffed a diamond, and called for the five of cœur. Dummy's French and observational skills were enough to play the five of hearts, the only five in dummy, and South ruffed that, ruffed another diamond and called "seven". Dummy continued on the same vein with the seven of hearts, but SB pounced. "That was an incomplete designation," he stated. "Dummy therefore has to lead the seven of spades, continuing the suit "in which" he won the last trick". "The law here is not that clear, but gordontd has stated it means the suit dummy ruffed the previous trick with. His different intention was not incontrovertible, as it would not be ridiculous to draw the last trump, miscounting one's tricks. I think it is one off now, is it not?" he gloated.

"DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR", he bellowed. The TD came running. "There was a breach of 46A by declarer". He continued: "There was also a breach of Law 46A (qv Law 1) two tricks ago, when declarer used "cœur" instead of "hearts", but as you know I am a reasonable chap and I let that go."

How do you rule?

Without much bothering: My standard ruling against SB - "♥7 is played and observe law 74A2"

[lamford]

pran, on 2017-January-14, 10:22, said:

Without much bothering: My standard ruling against SB - "♥7 is played and observe law 74A2"

But hearts was not the suit "in which" dummy had won the last trick? And dummy should not have "suggested a play".

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2017-January-14, 08:55, said:

"DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR", he bellowed. The TD came running. "There was a breach of 46A by declarer". He continued: "There was also a breach of Law 46A (qv Law 1) two tricks ago, when declarer used "cœur" instead of "hearts", but as you know I am a reasonable chap and I let that go."

How do you rule?

On the question whether SB is a reasonable chap, I rule he has given mis-information.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-14, 13:47, said:

On the question whether SB is a reasonable chap, I rule he has given mis-information.

And sarcasm is probably a violation of 74A1 or 74A2.

And bellowing "DIRECTOOOOOR" is a violation of 74B5, "summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants. "

[pran]

See my post in the parallell thread "Interpretation of Law 46B3a:

IMHO Law 46B3a never applies when Dummy has won a trick with a ruff and Declarer then calls a lead from dummy by specifying a rank but not a suit.

Instead the Director must in such cases go directly to Law 46B3b (because dummy obviously has no card in the suit he just ruffed).

And Law 46B3b explicitly states that "declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so; but if there are two or more such cards that can be legally played declarer must designate which is intended"

SB has no way of influencing which card declarer shall play in this situation.

[lamford]

pran, on 2017-January-14, 14:24, said:

See my post in the parallell thread "Interpretation of Law 46B3a:

IMHO Law 46B3a never applies when Dummy has won a trick with a ruff and Declarer then calls a lead from dummy by specifying a rank but not a suit.

Instead the Director must in such cases go directly to Law 46B3b (because dummy obviously has no card in the suit he just ruffed).

And Law 46B3b explicitly states that "declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so; but if there are two or more such cards that can be legally played declarer must designate which is intended"

SB has no way of influencing which card declarer shall play in this situation.

That does not seem to be the view of the EBU or ACBL, judging by the replies in the other thread. The TD ruled against SB here, but he has appealed, and I have been asked to sit on the AC. It would be good to have an official interpretation of 46B3a, as I agree with SB that, in this case, declarer's different intention was not incontrovertible. Has there been any case law?