[pran]

 Vampyr, on 2013-November-27, 14:52, said:

Yes, the law could be more general, or leave it up to each NBO to determine what terms in their language name a card unambiguously.

I wonder what the practice in other countries is when following suit in dummy with small cards. Here the designation is often "mmm".

In Norway pretty often the Word "ja" (= "yes")

[mycroft]

Okay, that's reasonable. I don't think that this particular regulation is in conflict with Law 85, because it defines what preponderance of the evidence should be in this case. And seriously, given all the people who were "always trying to win it" or "would always have played the 10" (after the 9 shows up) or any of the other translations of "I just didn't expect him to cover that, and so didn't bother to look/my brain was ahead of my eyes/I was a trick ahead of myself - surely you won't hold me to that, will you?" I don't find it beyond the pale. I think a different standard of evidence would also be appropriate, but again, I'm here, I do what I'm told.

And yes, I've seen - been - cases where I believe I met that burden of proof. At least my opponents didn't raise an eyebrow, never mind a fuss. I have an issue with the black suits, and once every couple of months I will mean "spade" and say "club". Almost always, oddly enough, it goes with me pointing to the spades, and ends up being "club-s...-sp...-THAT CARD!"

I'd say that once in three or once in four that that happens, I judge that it wasn't overwhelmingly obvious that it wasn't a slip of the tongue (even though I know for sure that it is), and I don't bother. Usually with a "ah, I can't prove I didn't mean it" line. It's just one of those things. I'm trying to train myself to, when I have this kind of miswire, instead of saying anything, trying to short-circuit it and pointing to the card. To moderate success.

[nige1]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-November-27, 10:15, said:

...If he directs dummy to "win" the trick, the lowest card that it is known will win the trick is deemed to have been called.

Helpful to inattentive declarers like me who may be unsure what cards are outstanding or whether RHO has already shown out.

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2013-November-27, 14:18, said:

Perhaps you should think a bit before you jump all over me. I did say that in national or lower level competitions the language of the host nation should govern. I've been to many non-English speaking countries, and lived in some. I've never expected, in any country, people to speak English just because I do. And I appreciate it when they speak English because I don't speak their language. So your umbrage is misplaced.

Perhaps you should critically read what you wrote and what you now write again.

"The language of the game is English". Nonsense, language and bridge are not related.

"The language of the host nation should govern." The mere fact that you feel it necessary to write that sovereign NBOs should use their own language... "Should"?!? You bet your $%}#}%$ that the language of the host nation should govern. That is so blatantly obvious, it shouldn't be necessary to mention. Writing sentences with "should" suggests that there is a question and that there are alternative answers. ("Blackshoe should be allowed to eat apples." opens up the possibility that Blackshoe could be forbidden to eat apples.) Well, there is no question and there are no alternative answers.

Have you ever considered to learn the languages of the countries that you've lived in? You write that you've never expected people to speak English just because you did. How did you expect to survive?

Do you mean that you expected to live in another country without any communication with the people who live there? I understand that you could manage to buy 2 apples by pointing at them and putting two fingers in the air (make sure to use the right fingers). But I suppose you weren't living under a bridge. How did you manage to rent (or buy) a home in a language that you don't speak? You just signed the contract without understanding it? How did you open a bank account? ...Get a phone line? ...File your taxes?

Or did you rely on people who spoke English anyway? (And hence did expect some of them to speak English.)

Or did you live on a US naval base where you basically lived in an entirely American community, that was geographically located in another country, but culturally in the USA? At least for the language part, that is not really living in another country, is it?

Don't get me wrong here. I have lived and worked abroad. (The fact that I now live in the country where I grew up really is a coincidence.) I know how heavily you need to rely on local people who speak English when you move into a country where you don't speak the language (yet). And that is fine since everybody understands that you don't learn a language overnight. But I would never claim that "English is the language of the game", whether it is the game of life or the game of bridge.

When in Rome, do as the Romans. The Romans speak Italian, not English. And they speak Italian just because they do, not because they "should".

Rik

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2013-November-27, 18:37, said:

"The language of the game is English". Nonsense, language and bridge are not related.

I have been to a lot of tournaments abroad where the "official" language is English, even if a majority of the players are not from an English-speaking country.

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2013-November-27, 19:00, said:

I have been to a lot of tournaments abroad where the "official" language is English, even if a majority of the players are not from an English-speaking country.

Does that mean "the language of the game is English"?

Rik

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-November-27, 12:45, said:

I just figured out what bothers me about this. Suppose declarer's LHO leads the 10 of some suit. Dummy has KJxx. Dummy (the player) has no idea where the A or Q are. Declarer says "win it". For which card has he called? Perhaps the law needs to tell Dummy, when he is not sure what declarer wants, to say "clarify, please" or some such. Yes, we do that now, but some day some SB is going to claim dummy is "participating in the play" by doing so.

I think "win" should only be used when dummy is 4th to play and is able to follow suit. Determining which of his cards is sufficient to win the trick is not participating in the play, it doesn't require any decision-making or judgement -- it's entirely mechanical.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2013-November-27, 22:58, said:

I think "win" should only be used when dummy is 4th to play and is able to follow suit. Determining which of his cards is sufficient to win the trick is not participating in the play, it doesn't require any decision-making or judgement -- it's entirely mechanical.

Agreed, but the Law doesn't say that. Law 46B1b applies also when dummy is 2nd or 3rd to play.

And we (may) have a problem here when
1: Dummy is not the 4th to play to the trick, and
2: Dummy has two or more non-adjacent cards higher in rank than the highest card currently played to the trick.

I am tempted to rule that Law 46B1b refers to the lowest ranking card in dummy that ranks above the highest ranking card so far played to the trick regardless of the possibility or even firm knowledge that next hand holds a card that in case may win the trick.

If this is not declarer's intention then he should have used the word "high" instead of the word "win".

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2013-November-27, 19:29, said:

Does that mean "the language of the game is English"?

Yes.

[Zelandakh]

 pran, on 2013-November-28, 02:49, said:

I am tempted to rule that Law 46B1b refers to the lowest ranking card in dummy that ranks above the highest ranking card so far played to the trick regardless of the possibility or even firm knowledge that next hand holds a card that in case may win the trick.

And I would think it means the opposite, the higher ranking, since the lower ranking is not known to be winning the trick (by simply looking at the cards currently visible on the table). Is it acceptable for Dummy to ask "With what?" in such a situation? I agree with Ed that this part of 46A is poorly written but changing two aspects of a law is enough for one post I think.

Incidentally, when I first came to Germany and spoke the language very badly, the (former) local club was extremely unfriendly about it. Ironically some of the players most upset were those who had played international competition and could have used English easily had they wanted to. More, there was a member of that club who had lived there for 20+ years and could not speak a word of German but everyone accepted this without a problem.

So I am pleased tht Rik's club welcomes foreign visitors but to extend that to the other countries in his list is an overbid. And English is currently the official language of international bridge but not of national, club or kitchen bridge. I find it extremely unlikely that English is used in international competition when 2 Italian pairs meet each other. The important thing is simply that the pairs can communicate effectively and English is used as it is the most understood language (as a second language) around the world.

[helene_t]

The reason why "a club" is deemed to mean "a small club" is not that the law says so. It is just that it has become custom to use the phrase that way. Things like this could easily differ between Yorkshire and Lancashire, or between remote small-village clubs and the Premier League. More so between players that speak different languages.

I think it is silly to try to legislate about it. National bridge federations can describe the proper way of designating this and that in their regulations, but when someone uses an improper designation it will always be up to the director to judge if it is clear what was intended.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2013-November-28, 02:49, said:

am tempted to rule that Law 46B1b refers to the lowest ranking card in dummy that ranks above the highest ranking card so far played to the trick regardless of the possibility or even firm knowledge that next hand holds a card that in case may win the trick.

That's not what the law says, and it's why I gave the specific example I did. In that particular case, there is no card which is "known to win the trick". Frankly, I would rather invoke Law 46B4 here ("If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card") than adopt your interpretation.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2013-November-28, 10:45, said:

That's not what the law says, and it's why I gave the specific example I did. In that particular case, there is no card which is "known to win the trick". Frankly, I would rather invoke Law 46B4 here ("If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card") than adopt your interpretation.

I believe we agree that Law 46 is unnecessarily unclear in its dealing with the word "win", but invoking Law 46B4 here is IMHO stretching this Law far too far.

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2013-November-28, 03:26, said:

 Trinidad, on 2013-November-27, 19:29, said:

Does that mean "the language of the game is English"?

Yes.

I suppose the confusion comes from a different interpretation of the phrase "the game". Of course, if English is the official language of the tournament, then English is the language of that game.

I find it hard to believe that you would claim that English is the language of the game of bridge in general.

Rik

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2013-November-28, 15:01, said:

I believe we agree that Law 46 is unnecessarily unclear in its dealing with the word "win", but invoking Law 46B4 here is IMHO stretching this Law far too far.

Perhaps so, but IMHO it's not so far a stretch as is invoking 46B1b.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2013-November-28, 17:06, said:

 pran, on 2013-November-28, 15:01, said:

I believe we agree that Law 46 is unnecessarily unclear in its dealing with the word "win", but invoking Law 46B4 here is IMHO stretching this Law far too far.

Perhaps so, but IMHO it's not so far a stretch as is invoking 46B1b.

Well, this part of the discussion was about requesting dummy to win the trick, wasn't it?

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2013-November-29, 02:36, said:

Well, this part of the discussion was about requesting dummy to win the trick, wasn't it?

Yes it was. So?

[pran]

 pran, on 2013-November-28, 15:01, said:

I believe we agree that Law 46 is unnecessarily unclear in its dealing with the word "win", but invoking Law 46B4 here is IMHO stretching this Law far too far.

 blackshoe, on 2013-November-28, 17:06, said:

Perhaps so, but IMHO it's not so far a stretch as is invoking 46B1b.

 pran, on 2013-November-29, 02:36, said:

Well, this part of the discussion was about requesting dummy to win the trick, wasn't it?

 blackshoe, on 2013-November-29, 12:11, said:

Yes it was. So?

Well then: Why do you seem to prefer L46B4 over L46B1b which is the relevant law when declarer asks dummy to win the trick?

[blackshoe]

There is no card in dummy which is known to win the trick. Therefore the instruction "win it" is equivalent to calling for a card which is not in dummy, which is Law 46B4.

You said you were tempted to rule that 46B1b says declarer has called for the lowest card in dummy which is higher than the highest card already played to the trick - but that's not what that law says. Perhaps I should have objected to "invoking 46B1b in that way".

[campboy]

 pran, on 2013-November-29, 13:32, said:

Well then: Why do you seem to prefer L46B4 over L46B1b which is the relevant law when declarer asks dummy to win the trick?

We certainly have to apply 46B1b. Ok, now what? Once you apply 46B1b, declarer is deemed to have called for the lowest card which is known to win the trick. No such card exists. So it makes sense to say that 46B4 now applies. We are not applying it instead of 46B1b, though, but as well as (and subsequently to) 46B1b.

After all, what would you rule if declarer said "play the lowest card which is known to win the trick"? I would rule that 46B4 applies. And 46B1b tells us we should treat this designation the same as "win it".