[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-07, 09:19, said:

It's an analogy, not a statement that the claim laws apply.

Quite so, and I had no intention of involving the claim laws directly, but as some of you folks has already appreciated: There is an analogy between how outstanding cards may be considered known by a claiming declarer and a declarer who says "win the trick".

Unless Declarer specifically calls a particular card from Dummy he is not considered "knowing" that RHO is void unless he (RHO) has already shown out.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-October-07, 15:02, said:

Unless Declarer specifically calls a particular card from Dummy he is not considered "knowing" that RHO is void unless he (RHO) has already shown out.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

[pran]

pran, on 2015-October-07, 15:02, said:

Unless Declarer specifically calls a particular card from Dummy he is not considered "knowing" that RHO is void unless he (RHO) has already shown out.

blackshoe, on 2015-October-07, 15:12, said:

That's an opinion, not a fact.

It is a reasonable analogy from the WBFLC understanding expressed in Law 70E1.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-07, 09:01, said:

If dummy is known to make a habit of suggesting plays to declarer, and has been warned before, I issue a PP (25% of a top in the ACBL, 10% in the EBU).

I thought the standard PP in North Korea the US was 13 months probation and 25% of career masterpoints.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2015-October-07, 14:57, said:

Likely or not: Has anybody even thought of the possibility that "sm..." might be the start of "smallest card that will win the trick" or something along this line?

Has anybody imagined that a player would call for a card in that fashion? And also we don't know that RHO is void, do we?

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-October-07, 17:09, said:

It is a reasonable analogy from the WBFLC understanding expressed in Law 70E1.

Still not a fact.

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-07, 15:12, said:

That's an opinion, not a fact.

Indeed - but hopefully a pretty widely held one.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2015-October-07, 10:22, said:

We have recently seen cases where players have gained through incomplete designations, and there was really no way around it. I find it unfortunate and would like to see as few such cases as possible.Note: Gordon, you said yourself, "change his mind". How can that be allowed? Note: I am not being self-righteous here. Virtually all of my designations are incomplete.

IMO, a player should never gain from an illegal designation (whether completed or not). In all doubtful cases, the director should favour the putative victims of the infraction.

That would encourage players to use a legal designation. It would also avoid the necessity for complex rules that specify how you might interpret illegal designations.

Unfortunately, players would have to change their habits. But rules that condone and encourage their own infraction, allow cheats to rationalize worse behaviour. Such a simplification and clarification of the rules would likely be anathema to rule-makers, .

[sanst]

Funny. Most posters are commenting on the declarer's "sm.." and giving some highly unlikely if not downright nonsensical explanations. For me, more important is the action of the dummy. I would have let the lpay continue, but given an AS and quite probably a penalty, at least a warning, to the dummy for playing a card without being instructed to do so and to the declarer for changing his play accordingly.
Things would be different had the dummy not picked up a card. Would you allow the declarer to change or muddle his call? He could say" sm...ile, but play the eight", or "small ... club" when diamonds were lead and there are diamonds on the table? Some years back there was a case in Holland in which the declarer, leading from the dummy, said (in Dutch) "hea...spades six". The national AC decided that a heart should be played. Based on that decision I would decide that in this case the lowest card in the suit should be played in the dummy.

[blackshoe]

The standard PP in North Korea is to have the opponents of Kim Jong-Un shot. It doesn't matter who committed the infraction. But the US is, fortunately, not North Korea. Not yet, anyway.

sanst, on 2015-October-08, 13:27, said:

Funny. Most posters are commenting on the declarer's "sm.." and giving some highly unlikely if not downright nonsensical explanations. For me, more important is the action of the dummy. I would have let the lpay continue, but given an AS and quite probably a penalty, at least a warning, to the dummy for playing a card without being instructed to do so and to the declarer for changing his play accordingly.

Hm. Would that be two PPs? What would be the legal basis for the PP to declarer?

sanst, on 2015-October-08, 13:27, said:

Some years back there was a case in Holland in which the declarer, leading from the dummy, said (in Dutch) "hea...spades six". The national AC decided that a heart should be played. Based on that decision I would decide that in this case the lowest card in the suit should be played in the dummy.

FWIW, I think your national AC was wrong. IAC, it sets a precedent only for Holland.