Incontrovertible Intention?
At yesterdays ManchesterGP Swiss Pairs.
6S by West with an outside loser and needing to play diamonds for no loser.
Having drawn trumps, declarer then played diamonds.
A54 opposite K1072.
Played the ace dropping the jack (or queen) in North, then played a diamond to the king bringing down the other diamond honour.
Then he called for "a diamond". So the TD required him to play a low one. He argued that it was obvious he meant the 10.
Was it incontrovertible intention? Everyone else was in 4S+2
Comments
It seems borderline to me and would need to be resolved by the TD asking questions of the player as to what was going on. But "incontrovertible" is a high barrier and I think it might well go against the player. Was there a reason the player played the diamonds that way? Absent other information, I would have expected most players to have gone off one trick earlier.
When calling for "a diamond" the implication is that it does not matter which so I think declarer is stuck with the small diamond. If it was obvious to play the D10 then why didn't he say so? Maybe the result was punishment for ignoring the rule of restricted choice 😁
I assume it's West having A54 and East K1072, and North's QJ were dropped in front of the 10?
Yes. Re Gordon's comment, the normal play is Ace first to cater for stiff JD or QD on right.
Perhps it wasnt clearly explained(my fault). West had A54 North had QJ East had K1072
Just to be clear, the QJ stiff was under the K10 so restricted choice doesn't come into the discussion.
I was the TD by the way.
In my book, the word "incontrovertible" means "something that is impossible to dispute or not able to be denied". If declarer does not designate a rank he has deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit led or last played unless the declarer had made a legitimate claim of winning the remaining non-trump suits (after all trumps drawn) supported by an appropriate statement. If so, he has deemed to have won the tricks by playing from the top.
It was clearly not a change of mind, just a clarification and when I did my TD training we were told that declarer could not be forced to do something ridiculously stupid in this situation - ther would have to be a logical rationale for the alternative play.
I remain convinced the ruling is wrong and would like a clarification of how incontrovertible a play has to be to comply with the laws of the game.
I'm with Sara on this.
The commentary to the 2017 laws states as an example of incontrovertible intention:
A more common example of the application of this provision is when declarer says, “play anything”. Declarer’s true intention is almost certainly to, “play anything small”, hence the TD should not require him to discard an Ace.
It is clear here that declarer's true intention is to play the 10.
I would also look to Law 45C4b:
Declarer may correct an unintended designation of a card from dummy until he next plays a card from either his own hand or from dummy. A change of designation may be allowed after a slip of the tongue, but not after a loss of
concentration or a reconsideration of action.
In retrospect "incontrovertible" is probably a poor choice of word, given the examples in the commentary.
Likewise if claiming with a trump outstanding and you need to draw then you must say so. Even if it is 'obvious' that you'll draw it then declarer must be clear.
Failure to say so is careless and not viewed sympathetically by a TD, otherwise floodgates open.
If the TD thinks declarer misspoke (slip of the tongue) in calling a card from dummy, then Law 45C4b applies.
Otherwise, to rule that "declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible", the TD should base this on the cards visible to all players - dummy's cards and the cards recently played - not on declarer's unplayed cards.
About the only case I can think of is when declarer playing the third round of suit from dummy, where dummy had three touching honours and played the first two from the top down and calls for the suit (but not rank) for the lead to the third trick. I ruled to allow the honour to be played when this came up in 2017 but even this was regarded as suspect (= borderline/wrong) by my colleagues.
What's your basis (in law, or otherwise) for saying this?
If Declarer's intention can be inferred, then surely it must be on the basis of what declarer can see / knows / has demonstrated.
What you're saying sounds applicable to a UI situation, which this isn't.
Saying "play anything" in the commentary example would also be careless, but the commentary allows us to look to Declarer's true intetention.
I agree it's careless and I don't like the "fine line judgement" that is required of a director, but the law (as clarified by the commentary) is the law.