Law 46

AlanB

Law 46B states:
In the case of an incomplete or invalid designation, the
following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s different
intention is incontrovertible):
Law 46 B.2 states:
If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is
deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit
indicated.

Doesn't the incontrovertible wording indicate that where there are (say) 8 cards to the AKQJ10982 in clubs and declarer calls for a club then it must be incontrovertible (in most instances) that declarer wanted a top club rather than the 2. This seems to clash with Law 46B2. If you don't think that is the case then can someone provide an example of where the incontrovertible statement might apply.

Mitch

46B2 only applies if the intention is not incontrovertible, and therefore there is no clash.

weejonnie

The 'incontrovertible' requirement is obviously VERY high. (NB it isn't a clash: if it is incontrovertible that declarer meant that a high club should be played then 46B2 doesn't apply)

Although this was written for the 2007 laws - arkiv.svenskbridge.se/e107_files/tavling/Laws4567.pdf has some useful examples.

Triffid

That link just fetches me back to this page.

weejonnie

@Triffid said:
That link just fetches me back to this page.

Yes - it does arkiv.svenskbridge.se/e107_files/tavling/Laws4567.pdf is the correct link (removes the EBU prefix).

SDN

What would you do if you had the C7 in your hand, the only entry, and wanted to get to your hand??

milton

@weejonnie said:

Yes - it does arkiv.svenskbridge.se/e107_files/tavling/Laws4567.pdf is the correct link (removes the EBU prefix).

Thanks Weejonnie. Is there any other useful article from this workshop in Sweden?

weejonnie

@milton said:

@weejonnie said:

Yes - it does arkiv.svenskbridge.se/e107_files/tavling/Laws4567.pdf is the correct link (removes the EBU prefix).

Thanks Weejonnie. Is there any other useful article from this workshop in Sweden?

There's an interesting article on comparable calls at eurobridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Comparable-Call.pdf - not from Sweden but it does mention the idea that a 1-card or 3-point difference could be regarded as a CC.

milton

@weejonnie said:
There's an interesting article on comparable calls at eurobridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Comparable-Call.pdf - not from Sweden but it does mention the idea that a 1-card or 3-point difference could be regarded as a CC.

Yes I know, this article and many others are from Larnaka-Cyprus TD Workshop, it took place this year, before 2 months.

AlanB

Thanks Milton - that clears it up for me. Alan

Robin_BarkerTD

Is this the document that was discussed in another thread?

and I said we are waiting for the commentary ... we are still waiting for the commentary.

bluejak

@SDN said:
What would you do if you had the C7 in your hand, the only entry, and wanted to get to your hand??

I expect I would not say "club". I am fairly sure I would say "small club".

But whether a play is incontrovertibly not intended is just another judgement decision for the TD.

SDN

@bluejak said:

@SDN said:
What would you do if you had the C7 in your hand, the only entry, and wanted to get to your hand??

I expect I would not say "club". I am fairly sure I would say "small club".

But whether a play is incontrovertibly not intended is just another judgement decision for the TD.

Have a look at items 3A and B under Law 46 in the European Bridge League note referred to above by weejonnie. They illustrate the logic of dealing with the problem being discussed here.