[nige1]

IMO
As usual the current law...

• ... Relies too much on the director's subjective judgement. Players naturally question the fairness of an adverse ruling when other players get favourable rulings in identical circumstances. It may seem to them that the ruling depends on how much the declarer trusts the player. The law puts directors in an impossible position when a ruling involves somebody they like or dislike. I bet such powers are not welcome to all directors
  
• ... Penalises those who abide by it (designating a card by rank and suit). But often
  
• ....Rewards and encourages those who break it (by touching a card or just naming its suit).
  
• ... Penalises players who tell directors the truth but
  
• ... Rewards and encourages plausible liars (and self-deluders).

Again, as usual, a simpler clearer law would be fairer and lead to a less controversial and more enjoyable game:

• Declarer should specify dummy's card by rank and suit.
  
• If declarer says "J'adoube" then he may arrange dummy's cards. Otherwise a touched card is deemed played.
  
• If declarer just names the rank then he should be asked to complete the designation unless there is only one card of that rank in dummy.
  
• If declarer just names the suit this should always mean the lowest card in the suit (no exceptions).
  
• If declarer says "run <suit>", this should mean play the entire suit from the top down.
  
• When declarer specifies a card (however sloppily), and that card is in dummy, then the director should not allow him to change it.
  
• Declarer should not even be allowed to change a designation in the same breath. For example, "king.. no knave of clubs" designates a king and "spade ... no heart" designates "lowest spade". (I think this last rule is fair and consistent, although some may regard it as draconian).

[Zelandakh]

nige1, on Oct 2 2010, 08:31 AM, said:

[*] If declarer says "J'adoube" then he may arrange dummy's cards. Otherwise a touched card is deemed played.

What is your solution to a declarer that puts a hand over the entire stack of a suit in order to move it without saying "I adjust"? (even in chess the English is allowed). Are you going to assign penalty cards to dummy? allow RHO to choose any of the touched cards? Lowest? Highest? Or should we just get on with playing the game and not worrying so much about trivialities?

[JoAnneM]

Why would declarer be touching dummy? How dummy takes takes of the cards is actually something that should be discussed by a partnership. For instance, I don't want dummy to move the suits closer together after one suit is used up. I want that gap left there. I don't even want it moved when I am defender, but I am not sure if I am entitled to say anything.

[Zelandakh]

JoAnneM, on Oct 4 2010, 12:38 AM, said:

Why would declarer be touching dummy? How dummy takes takes of the cards is actually something that should be discussed by a partnership. For instance, I don't want dummy to move the suits closer together after one suit is used up. I want that gap left there. I don't even want it moved when I am defender, but I am not sure if I am entitled to say anything.

Some players put their cards down back to front, or do not place trumps on the left, or have the cards arranged loosely such that they partially block the rank of one of the cards. Or perhaps declarer just has OCD and needs all the cards ordered precisely so their head does not explode. It does not really matter what the reason is.

[h2osmom]

What if declarer has a mild problem with stuttering? Not allowing him/her to change a designation in the same breath seems more than draconian to me.

[nige1]

h2osmom, on Oct 7 2010, 05:40 PM, said:

What if declarer has a mild problem with stuttering?  Not allowing him/her to change a designation in the same breath seems more than draconian to me.

The suggested rules have drawbacks. IMO they are still simpler and fairer than current rules. For example, when playing against a declarer with a handicap, a player can refrain from drawing attention to connected infractions. Also, They may ask the director to waive resulting penalties. This is the way that players now deal with such situations, in the clubs I visit.

[Phil]

h2osmom, on Oct 7 2010, 05:40 PM, said:

What if declarer has a mild problem with stuttering? Not allowing him/her to change a designation in the same breath seems more than draconian to me.

No different than someone with palsy dropping cards as defenders.

[h2osmom]

ok, fair enough, but someone with palsy dropping a card face down has no penalty. If the dropped card doesn't get exposed to partner it can be picked up and play resume with no penalty. If a slight stutterer corrects himself, it should be the same; the card intended should be allowed to be played.

[peachy]

h2osmom, on Oct 7 2010, 05:40 PM, said:

What if declarer has a mild problem with stuttering? Not allowing him/her to change a designation in the same breath seems more than draconian to me.

I don't think a stutterer would start for example the word "heart" with the letter S or "club" with something that starts with a D. So while handicaps and impairments should be given some latitude, such forgiveness should not be automatic.

[jeremy69]

And for those with Tourette's syndrome?

[iviehoff]

nige1, on Oct 2 2010, 09:31 AM, said:

4. If declarer just names the suit this should always mean the lowest card in the suit (no exceptions).

5. If declarer says "run <suit>", this should mean play the entire suit from the top down.
...
7. Declarer should not even be allowed to change a designation in the same breath. For example, "king.. no knave of clubs" designates a king and "spade ... no heart" designates "lowest spade". (I think this last rule is fair and consistent, although some may regard it as draconian).

Generally I think we can afford to be a little less forgiving here for the sake of clarity. Players will learn to be more careful, as they are in chess. In backgammon you can undo anything, but that is because there is an end-of-move signifier available.

4/7 I don't think this one is as easy as you make it look. Some people consistently name cards in the order "spade Ace", and others do so inconsistently. There are bound to be languages in which that is the normal way of doing it. So there are circumstances when we are inevitably uncertain whether someone who said "spade" just hasn't got around to finishing the designation. We could outlaw saying "spade Ace", and I suppose that if one discovered that "spade Ace" meant "low spade", you'd pretty soon stop doing it. But this seems to depend on English being the language and won't do for languages where spade Ace is the normal designation. We can hardly write the laws to depend upon certain languages.

I suggest we have to allow people reasonable time to complete the designation before we insist that "spade" means a low one. So in the "spade no heart" situation, we may therefore have to allow that "spade" was an incomplete designation and allow them to complete it, having informed them that they are now committed to a spade. But is "spade I'll tell you which one shortly (pause pause) yes I'll have the Ace" an acceptable way of designating the SA?

5. Ideally declarers shouldn't say this at all. How to stop them? We could say that these words mean nothing and dummies must not do anything until given a proper designation, but probably dummies will comply with the instruction to some degree, so we have to handle the situation. Also defenders may not be informed. One unavoidable problem with the "run suit" instruction is that the suit may not in fact run. The realisation that is the situation is a common reason a player wishes to discontinue it at an earlier stage. At the very least, we have to excuse declarer from continuing if dummy loses the lead, since playing in turn and following suit have precedence, and even if the discards are legal, it doesn't really meet the description of "run".

The present interpretation is that "run suit" means "play cards from the top of that suit until I countermand that instruction", ie not necessarily all the way to the end. This will frequently be only one trick less than the get-out we are forced to give them. Does it really improve things a great deal if we force them to continue trying to run it until they can't? Probably, but only in the sense that they will learn not to use such a designation, which would be a good thing.

[gwnn]

Just curious: what about people who sometimes say "spade Jack" for instance?

[bluejak]

For some people "spade ace" is the normal English designation.

[pran]

bluejak, on Oct 8 2010, 04:47 PM, said:

For some people "spade ace" is the normal English designation.

I might add that in Norwegian the equivalent of spade Ace ("Spar Ess") is the normal designation (and similarly for any suit and any rank)

[nige1]

bluejak, on Oct 8 2010, 04:47 PM, said:

For some people "spade ace" is the normal English designation.

pran, on Oct 8 2010, 11:24 AM, said:

I might add that in Norwegian the equivalent of spade Ace ("Spar Ess") is the normal designation (and similarly for any suit and any rank)

Here is a fairly common kind of scenario: with ♠AQ in dummy,

• You say "spade",
  
• RHO plays his king,
  
• You say "ace",
  
• RHO calls the director,
  
• You claim that RHO did not give you sufficient time to complete your designation, and
  
• Both defenders dispute this.

The director will rule depending on whom he trusts and how he interprets the rules. Even in such simple basic cases, judgements are controversial and inconsistent.

If directors enforced a simpler rule, for example, that you should designate a card as "rank suit", it wouldn't solve all such problems but, IMO, it would engender less bad-feeling and lead to greater consistency

Of course, as Sven implies, the rule could insist that whenever declarer makes an ambiguous designation, then defenders must always wait for clarification. IMO such a rule could work well. Although a specification of rank (only) seems to cause few problems, in practice.

[bluejak]

I have no sympathy whatever for any idiot defender who hears a partial definition and does not wait for either it to be completed or the card to be played. If he cannot be bothered to play in turn why should we have sympathy for him?

[pran]

bluejak, on Oct 8 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

I have no sympathy whatever for any idiot defender who hears a partial definition and does not wait for either it to be completed or the card to be played. If he cannot be bothered to play in turn why should we have sympathy for him?

I second that.

And if Dummy plays before declarer has completed his call and then RHO plays to the trick before declarer requests the intended card to be played from dummy then we are in law 45D territory allowing RHO to withdraw his first played card.

Also remember that in this case knowledge of the card withdrawn by RHO is authorized for the other defender and unauthorised for declarer! (Law 16D applies.)

[TimG]

nige1, on Oct 8 2010, 01:13 PM, said:

Here is a fairly common kind of scenario

Common? I don't think I've ever encountered this.