Designation of card from dummy
I am unsure whether this is a matter of Law, Ethics or simple bad sportsmanship.
Last night at Club, on one board I was Dummy and my partner playing the cards, played two top cards from Diamonds having already drawn trumps (Clubs) with one left on the table.
She then indicated by pointing directly at the Diamonds but said, 'Run the Clubs'. One defender insisted on the Club being played with the result my partner made 12 tricks when 13 were available - the result every other pair in the room made (although in different contracts).
My view was that the comment 'Run the Cubs' could hardly mean play the club when there was only one on the table and she was clearly indicating the Diamond sequence in the Dummy.
However, we complied and an appeal to an alternative TD (the TD for the night was one of the opponents, but not the one who insisted on the Club being played).
This left a very nasty taste. This was an ordinary Club night, no special competition or Trophy at stake. At the very least I regarded Defender's behaviour as ungracious, unnecessary and a clear example of why casual players are alienated from joining in Club play.
An authoritative comment would be very much appreciated.
Comments
Omission: "an appeal to an alternative TD" was unsuccessful.
IMHO - "run the clubs" is certainly not a complete designation: So we look at law 46 - which I presume the TD read out to you before making thair ruling.
LAW 46 – INCOMPLETE OR INVALID DESIGNATION OF A CARD FROM DUMMY
A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card
When calling for a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and
the rank of the desired card.
B. Incomplete or Invalid Designation
In the case of an incomplete or invalid designation, the following restrictions apply (except when
declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):
have called the highest card of the suit led.
(b) If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick, he is deemed to have called the lowest card that it
is known will win the trick.
(c) If he calls ‘low’, or words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the lowest card of
the suit led.
the suit indicated.
. . .
SO: First of all your partner should specify each card in turn - Yes I know 'run the xx' is often used but it is slovenly and (as here) can cause problems - 'should' is a term defined in the laws as 'failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised"
So the question becomes "Is it incontrovertible that your partner intended the Diamonds to be run?" If so then she should be allowed to play a Diamond. The White book comments on using the phrase "Run the clubs" but only to say that the WBFLC allow each card to be changed provided declarer's RHO hasn't played.
See : https://ebu.co.uk/forum/discussion/77/declarer-changes-designation-of-card-to-be-played-from-dummy
If, as director, I ascertained from the defenders that declarer pointed to the diamonds then I would rule that declarer's intention was incontrovertible - and allow Diamonds to be played. Remember: I wasn't there - so did not see what happened.
Thank you for your comment. Is it not also the case that incident is covered by this from Page 70- of the Laws:
"(b) 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. If an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his hand, and substitute another "
The appeals TD did not read out any section fro the Laws but despite a full description of the incident and the phrase 'Slip of the tongue' being used, just declared 'The club was called for and that's the Laws of Bridge!'
As described, it sounds to me as though the diamonds should be allowed to be played under L45C4b. In fact this could easily be an example case in a TD training course, so strong is the evidence with the pointing at the diamonds and the use of the plural when only one club was in dummy.
I think the term is inadvertent designation. As already said by others, pointing at the diamonds strongly suggests that declarers only intention was to run the diamonds, not the clubs. It's a simple slip of the tongue.
It changed to "unintended" in the 2007 laws because of the difficulty of translation of "inadvertent".
As a playing club TD, I would not let my partner "insist".
Sorry to be pedantic but it is not clear (to me) exactly what happened. We appear to have...
This sound like you agreed to play the club without a TD ruling but later approached a TD. Although of course it can't be an 'appeal' without an earlier ruling.
You should have summoned the TD to get a ruling before the club was played. The TD for the night who was playing at you table should have ensured that (if they didn't feel able to make the ruling themselves) an alternative TD did make one.
The TD has to check that everyone agrees with the given version of events. If that was agreed then, as the previous posters have already said, Law 45C4b seems to apply and diamonds can be played.
You are right, we did play on without a TD ruling and, yes, I know we should have sought one. And only later after having had time to reflect on the seeming injustice asking for a ruling at then end of the evening.
It's a common refrain from those more experienced in the game than I but takes no account of the personal circumstances of the players concerned (of which I shall say nothing here but lay behind my concern for my partner's feelings) or the wish "not to create a fuss".
It's equally true that the playing TD at the table during the incident could have himself sought an immediate ruling from an alternate TD and, perhaps, had a greater responsibility to do so.
Oh well - you live and learn: players should be taught at an early age that irregularities occur, that they are almost always inadvertent, and that calling a TD to ensure rectification of damage is never implying a stain on one's opponents' escutcheon.
In my mind an irregularity is usually something like a clumsy tackle in football, not a professinal foul in the penalty area. The other side get awarded equity (in the form of a free kick) and only rarely does the offender get booked (given a procedural penalty).
It's often a cultural matter, varying from club to club. One club I play at has the attitude that calling the TD is akin to calling the cops on someone. At another club, the TD is called as a matter of course whenever there's something to be resolved.
I remember one session, at the former of those two clubs, I called the TD and, instead of the pleasant "How may I help?", that I picked up from Gordon's videos, I was targeted with, "What are you bothering me with this time?". I've pretty much given up trying to change their attitude when I direct there, although I do sometimes suggest that people should call me even if only to check that I still remember the Laws.
My experience of many clubs over many years is that in the friendliest the director often gets called but no-one minds.
The prevalence in some quarters of the mindset that the TD is being called on someone in unfortunate. It should be as at Tag's second club, remembering that the overwhelming majority of problems requiring the director's assistance arise inadvertently.