[Phil]

---

Recently I was called to the table regarding this suit.

South leads low toward dummy (the suit was clubs and the contract was 3N, and LHO pitches a small diamond.

South eyes it says, "hmmm....a small card".

EW contend that this constitutes the designation of a small card from dummy on the suit played and that East should be awarded a trick with the 9.

What do you think?

[mjj29]

Phil, on Apr 28 2010, 11:49 AM, said:

South eyes it says, "hmmm....a small card".

EW contend that this constitutes the designation of a small card from dummy on the suit played and that East should be awarded a trick with the 9.

What do you think?

I think it's clearly bollocks.

More usefully I would rule under L45C that it was not designated 'as a card he proposed to play'.

L45C 4. (a) said:

A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play

[WellSpyder]

It is not clear from the description of what happened whether South was
a.) commenting on West's small diamond or
b.) having originally been wondering whether to finesse or not now deciding he may as well let East win the trick anyway even though the finesse will clearly lose.
I think this will normally be clear at the table, though. If a.) then mjj29 is clearly right. If b.) then it looks like South has indeed designated a card to be played, albeit somewhat carelessly....

[jdonn]

This is where the director should use his logic. Someone who intended (through a brain fart / senior moment / whatever) to play a small spade from dummy wouldn't use the words "hmmm....a small card" or even "a small card". They would say "small" or "spade" or "deuce" or "small spade". So to me it's clear what south meant (that he was referring to west's play) and I would rule south didn't designate a play with his comment.

[Phil]

mjj29, on Apr 28 2010, 11:55 AM, said:

Phil, on Apr 28 2010, 11:49 AM, said:

South eyes it says, "hmmm....a small card".

EW contend that this constitutes the designation of a small card from dummy on the suit played and that East should be awarded a trick with the 9.

What do you think?

I think it's clearly bollocks.

More usefully I would rule under L45C that it was not designated 'as a card he proposed to play'.

L45C 4. (a) said:

A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play

This is how I ruled, but I told South to be careful with these comments that can have unintended consequences.

Whenever these pairs play against each other I get a disproportionate number of director calls.

[pran]

Phil, on Apr 29 2010, 03:57 AM, said:

mjj29, on Apr 28 2010, 11:55 AM, said:

Phil, on Apr 28 2010, 11:49 AM, said:

South eyes it says, "hmmm....a small card".

EW contend that this constitutes the designation of a small card from dummy on the suit played and that East should be awarded a trick with the 9.

What do you think?

I think it's clearly bollocks.

More usefully I would rule under L45C that it was not designated 'as a card he proposed to play'.

L45C 4. (a) said:

A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play

This is how I ruled, but I told South to be careful with these comments that can have unintended consequences.

Whenever these pairs play against each other I get a disproportionate number of director calls.

You could warn them that the laws include very strict rules on what words to use in various situations and that Law 90A allows the Director to impose procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game.

Deviations from specified procedures and unneccessary calls for the Director can be such offences, so maybe they have better be more careful with their behaviour at the table.

[bluejak]

What unnecessary call for the TD?

Look, pran, TDs are here to serve their customers, not penalise them because they have the temerity to call the TD away from his socialising in the bar.

[pran]

bluejak, on May 10 2010, 11:59 PM, said:

What unnecessary call for the TD?

Look, pran, TDs are here to serve their customers, not penalise them because they have the temerity to call the TD away from his socialising in the bar.

You'll never find me in a bar when I am a director.

And I am there to serve all the players, not only one who calls me excessively for no real reason.

Inasmuch as you can have appeals with no merit you can (at least in theory) also have TD calls with no merit (although I don't remember ever having been subject of one).

I have a strong feeling that your post was one with no merit.

[jeremy69]

There has been consideration in this thread of whether declarer should be required to play a small card so if even a small number think he should how can a call for the director be wasting his time? We spend shedloads of time telling players not to sort it out themselves usually because they make it worse and now there is talk about meritless calls!
I would suggest that no call for the TD is ever meritless.

[gordontd]

jeremy69, on May 11 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

I would suggest that no call for the TD is ever meritless.

In general I agree, though I do remember when I had broken my foot in several places and was directing on crutches, being called to the far end of a crowded room. When I got there the player said he had just wanted to see how I negotiated the obstacles.

[gwnn]

That has to be the best counter-example of the history of bridgebase forums

[jeremy69]

Quote

In general I agree, though I do remember when I had broken my foot in several places and was directing on crutches, being called to the far end of a crowded room. When I got there the player said he had just wanted to see how I negotiated the obstacles.

Rare that we see an octuple PP.