[InTime]

Our partners in a Tx4 game were playing in 3NT. In Dummy was ♦AKQJxx and the defender on the right held ♦10xxx. No other entry to Dummy was available and 6 diamond tricks were needed to make the contract. She called for the A, K, Q and then says "another diamond". The Defender on the right immediately played the 10♦ before dummy has played and called the TD claiming that declarer was actually asking for a small diamond. It was ruled that dummy must play a small diamond . . . the contract going down.
Is this ruling correct? Can Dummy not verify which diamond declarer is actually asking for before play proceeds?
Regards

[axman]

InTime, on Apr 30 2010, 10:55 AM, said:

Our partners in a Tx4 game were playing in 3NT. In Dummy was ♦AKQJxx and the defender on the right held ♦10xxx. No other entry to Dummy was available and 6 diamond tricks were needed to make the contract. She called for the A, K, Q and then says "another diamond". The Defender on the right immediately played the 10♦ before dummy has played and called the TD claiming that declarer was actually asking for a small diamond. It was ruled that dummy must play a small diamond . . . the contract going down.

Is this ruling correct?

Can Dummy not verify which diamond declarer is actually asking for before play proceeds?

Regards

Is this ruling correct? yes

Can Dummy not verify which diamond declarer is actually asking for before play proceeds? if declarer mumbled and dummy did not hear, then dummy is permitted to ask for clarification [prevent an irregulaity L42B2]. in this case dummy has heard and to do anything except put the smallest D [L46B1c] in a played position is an infraction.

I have been in declarer's shoes and regretted it. And it would not occur to me to request a ruling from the TD to have it otherwise. ANd as dummy the small D gets played lightning fast just like every other card [including revokes] that declarer has called.

[blackshoe]

Seems to me declarer's RHO is trying to pull a fast one. I don't like that.

[peachy]

Ruling is correct. The laws do not protect us from our mental lapses. Dummy is not allowed to assist declarer, ask, verify, question, react, or delay, when the designation of a card was clearly heard.

[bixby]

I was defending once in a similar situation, and after a couple of rounds of the suit declarer just said "diamond," and dummy played its highest diamond. I called the Director -- declarer was quite indignant -- and the Director ruled that the play of the high diamond would be allowed.

I pointed out that Law 46B2 provides that "If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated." But the Director pointed out that the rules of Law 46 apply "except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible."

So returning to the OP, the question is whether declarer's intention to play the DJ from dummy was "incontrovertible." It sounds like the Director I called would say yes, but not the Director who was called in this case.

My feeling is that declarer in both cases surely *would have* intended to play the high diamond if he had thought about it, but probably had a lapse of concentration. If through a lapse of concentration declarer plays the wrong card from his hand, the play stands and there is no way out. I don't see why a lapse of concentration in calling cards from dummy should be treated more leniently. Concentration is part of bridge and if you have a lapse, something bad can happen to you.

So I would interpret the exception in Law 46 to apply to cases where, for example, declarer says "diamond" but points upwards with his finger. If declarer just says "diamond" and there is nothing else, then I don't think we can know incontrovertibly whether declarer meant "high diamond" but didn't say it or whether declarer dropped his concentration and called for the wrong card thoughtlessly.

But I can see the argument the other way and I would be interested to hear what experienced Directors think about this one.

[jjbrr]

blackshoe, on Apr 30 2010, 11:24 AM, said:

Seems to me declarer's RHO is trying to pull a fast one. I don't like that.

I agree. While the ruling seems correct, RHO should get a KITN.

[MFA]

bixby, on Apr 30 2010, 08:17 PM, said:

I pointed out that Law 46B2 provides that "If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated."  But the Director pointed out that the rules of Law 46 apply "except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible." 

So returning to the OP, the question is whether declarer's intention to play the DJ from dummy was "incontrovertible."  It sounds like the Director I called would say yes, but not the Director who was called in this case.

I agree with "your" director's understanding of the laws. Law 46B has a clear safety valve, just as you describe it.

I like it if it is used here. I think that a player who has cashed A, then K, then Q, is incontrovertibly intending to run the suit from the top in spite of his forgetting to actually say top diamond every single time.

FWIW I have seen this many times before, when it is just about cashing a solid suit. For some reason it is a situation where it is easy to get just a little sloppy with the words. In practice it is usually solved by a defender saying "huh" and declarer saying "I meant top of course", and everybody being happy about that.

Maybe this is stretching it, I don't know. But I'm all in favour of choosing the interpretation that conforms best with how the situation is usually handled at the table, so we avoid rewarding a player who acts like east does in the actual hand.

[bid_em_up]

jjbrr, on Apr 30 2010, 02:40 PM, said:

RHO should get a KITN.

Why would we give RHO a kitten for this sort of behavior?

[jdonn]

bid_em_up, on Apr 30 2010, 02:18 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Apr 30 2010, 02:40 PM, said:

RHO should get a KITN.

Why would we give RHO a kitten for this sort of behavior?

jjbr is obsessed with cats. It's sickening really.

[jeffford76]

When you're running a suit from the top and you call for another one, you mean another top one. If the law about "incontrovertible intention" doesn't apply here, then why is it in the book?

[jjbrr]

jdonn, on Apr 30 2010, 02:08 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Apr 30 2010, 02:18 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Apr 30 2010, 02:40 PM, said:

RHO should get a KITN.

Why would we give RHO a kitten for this sort of behavior?

jjbr is obsessed with cats. It's sickening really.

kitn != kitten

[Free]

jeffford76, on Apr 30 2010, 09:19 PM, said:

When you're running a suit from the top and you call for another one, you mean another top one. If the law about "incontrovertible intention" doesn't apply here, then why is it in the book?

Agree, this is a clear case where declarer clearly wants to play his suit from the top. It doesn't matter what he calls the next card, he intends to play the J and it's the most obvious card anyway. All this is backed up by the laws.

The guy with the T is ridiculous, and TD is probably his friend...

[bluejak]

Is the ruling correct? Possibly yes, probably no. It is a judgement ruling as to whether "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible".

Quote

The Defender on the right immediately played the 10♦ before dummy has played and called the TD claiming that declarer was actually asking for a small diamond.

I give RHO a warning over his behaviour, and tell him to wait in future until dummy's card is actually played - despite what others have said in another thread, I still think it quite obvious that the moving of the card is part of the play. I agree he is trying a fast one. If he thinks there is doubt as to what card is played then he should call the TD, not to try to influence proceedings.

Quote

Can Dummy not verify which diamond declarer is actually asking for before play proceeds?

Dummies always want join in the play but they are not allowed to. He should stay silent, put the small card apparently asked for in the played position, and let declarer fight his own battles.