[pran]

lamford, on 2017-February-27, 04:41, said:

Neither the old laws nor the new laws distinguish between dummy being asked to "win" the trick when not last to play. In other positions, dummy should play the lowest card "known" to win the trick. This must be the lowest card declarer knows will win the trick. How dummy is supposed to read declarer's mind is anyone's guess.

Frankly (FWIW), if I were Dummy and Declarer asked me to "win the trick" I would have played my highest card in the suit (if I had more than one to choose between) unless I was absolutely sure that a lower card would be sufficient.

This would be the lowest card known to me that will win the trick.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2017-February-27, 05:44, said:

Frankly (FWIW), if I were Dummy and Declarer asked me to "win the trick" I would have played my highest card in the suit (if I had more than one to choose between) unless I was absolutely sure that a lower card would be sufficient.

This would be the lowest card known to me that will win the trick.

Yes, this is the trouble. What is known to Dummy Ishtar not be known to Declarer. Dummy being absolutely sure of anything is entirely irrelevant and basing an action on it is entirely improper.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-27, 09:32, said:

Yes, this is the trouble. What is known to Dummy Ishtar not be known to Declarer. Dummy being absolutely sure of anything is entirely irrelevant and basing an action on it is entirely improper.

Indeed, if RR had said to dummy, "Play the card that you know will win the trick", what should dummy do?

[axman]

WellSpyder, on 2017-February-27, 04:07, said:

It is my understanding that if declarer tells dummy to ruff when dummy has no trumps (including when the hand is being played at no trumps!) then dummy should do nothing at all. In my view, the same should apply if dummy is asked to "win" the trick but is not the last hand to play. In other words, the interpretation of "win" meaning the lowest card that takes the trick applies if and only if dummy is the last hand to play to the trick. Otherwise it has no meaning.

[Disclaimer: the last (and possibly only) time I told dummy to "win" the trick was when it held a singleton K in the suit led and an opponent had already played the A. Dummy did his best to comply with my instruction, but failed to do so.....]

It has occurred to me that declarer may well give the instruction 'win' while dummy has cards in the suit led- none of which are higher than those already contributed; and it seems to me that given L46 that instruction compels dummy to contribute a trump.

[pran]

pran, on 2017-February-27, 05:44, said:

Frankly (FWIW), if I were Dummy and Declarer asked me to "win the trick" I would have played my highest card in the suit (if I had more than one to choose between) unless I was absolutely sure that a lower card would be sufficient.

This would be the lowest card known to me that will win the trick.

Vampyr, on 2017-February-27, 09:32, said:

Yes, this is the trouble. What is known to Dummy Ishtar not be known to Declarer. Dummy being absolutely sure of anything is entirely irrelevant and basing an action on it is entirely improper.

I don't see any trouble? Please pay attention to the parts that I have highlighted.

If Declarer asks me to win the trick I normally have no alternative to playing my highest card in the relevant suit.

[lamford]

pran, on 2017-February-27, 17:10, said:

I don't see any trouble? Please pay attention to the parts that I have highlighted.

If Declarer asks me to win the trick I normally have no alternative to playing my highest card in the relevant suit.

Then you are breaking the law, especially if dummy is last to play, when you are always obliged to play the lowest card that will now win the trick, and if dummy is second or third to play then you should play the lowest card that is "known" by you to win the trick.

[blackshoe]

What do you do if you have no idea which card will win the trick? Sit there like a stone?

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2017-February-27, 18:07, said:

Then you are breaking the law, especially if dummy is last to play, when you are always obliged to play the lowest card that will now win the trick, and if dummy is second or third to play then you should play the lowest card that is "known" by you to win the trick.

blackshoe, on 2017-February-27, 18:26, said:

What do you do if you have no idea which card will win the trick? Sit there like a stone?

Dummy's knowledge is irrelevant. He must play dummy's highest card if there are other players yet to contribute to the trick. It does not matter if such a player has already shown out; dummy cannot participate in the play.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-27, 18:38, said:

Dummy's knowledge is irrelevant. He must play dummy's highest card if there are other players yet to contribute to the trick. It does not matter if such a player has already shown out; dummy cannot participate in the play.

Well, when dummy is asked to ruff, dummy recalls the auction and selects his lowest trump. When dummy is asked to play small, he looks to see which suit is led and plays the lowest card of that suit. In this case he is specifically required to play the lowest card that is known to win the trick. So he has to participate in the play, or there is no play.

If dummy is fourth to play, it is easy. If dummy is third to play, he plays the lowest card that is known to win the trick if his LHO has already shown out or is known from the play not to have a card of the suit led, otherwise he plays his highest card. If dummy is second to play, he has again to play the highest card unless both his RHO AND his partner have shown out, or are known not to have a card of the suit led.

I am sure this is not what is intended by the Laws, and I stand by my proposed correction earlier:
46B1(b) If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit led that will win the trick if dummy is last to play; otherwise dummy has to play the highest card of the suit led.

It is up to the lawmakers to decide what to do if dummy does not have a card of the suit led. I would suggest that he is then obliged to play the lowest trump that wins the trick if last to play, his highest trump but only if it higher than the highest trump played so far to a trick, if not last to play, and any card that declarer specifies without restriction if it is not possible for dummy to win the trick. Complicated but necessary!

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-27, 18:38, said:

Dummy's knowledge is irrelevant. He must play dummy's highest card if there are other players yet to contribute to the trick. It does not matter if such a player has already shown out; dummy cannot participate in the play.

Is it "known" to dummy that his highest card will win the trick? If not, on what basis do you say he must play it?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-27, 19:40, said:

Is it "known" to dummy that his highest card will win the trick? If not, on what basis do you say he must play it?

In any contract, if dummy is last to play, it is clear which is the lowest card that is known to win a trick. When dummy is not last to play, in no-trumps, if dummy plays the ace of the suit led, it is known to win the trick. If dummy ruffs with the ace of trumps, it is known that this will win the trick. The rest of the time, dummy has to have kept track of which cards have gone, as a much lower card - even an eight - can be known to win the trick. I think that the word known should disappear from this Law! Much of the time dummy cannot know whether his highest card will win the trick; I guess he just has to sit there and do nothing.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2017-February-27, 19:57, said:

Much of the time dummy cannot know whether his highest card will win the trick; I guess he just has to sit there and do nothing.

That was my point, yet Vampyr suggests this is incorrect in law.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-27, 20:35, said:

That was my point, yet Vampyr suggests this is incorrect in law.

No, I think you are right when dummy does not know for certain that a particular card will win the trick. The laws need to state what happens in such a case. And, as you point out on bridgewinners, "Cover" is not defined either, but that is interpreted, I think, as playing the lowest card, in the same suit, above the highest card played so far in this trick. "Over-ruff" must be interpreted as playing the lowest trump in dummy larger than the highest previously played trump in this trick.

But we do need to be careful not to waste time discussing common insufficient designations such as "Win it", "Cover" and "Over-ruff". Most people who care about the laws are concerned primarily to fix those that have actually caused problems, or that one could foresee causing problems in reality, or that don't need a strange construction of the words to produce a problem.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-27, 20:35, said:

That was my point, yet Vampyr suggests this is incorrect in law.

Yes, dummy tries his best ny playing the highest card.

As for Lamford's suggestion that dummy must ruff, this is nonsense.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-27, 21:23, said:

As for Lamford's suggestion that dummy must ruff, this is nonsense.

So, a two-card ending with the ace and king of trumps in separate hands, and plain cards of different suits. I lead a plain card and say "win it". The plain card has already been covered. Do you think dummy should discard the other plain card, or ruff? The high trump is a card that it is known will win the trick, so dummy should ruff without asking. Even if the plain card was an ace, I think dummy has to ruff it when told to "win it" and even if dummy does not know the last card in each hand.

Interestingly, the 2017 laws will make it unclear what dummy has to do when the only way to win the trick is to ruff high. Adding "of the suit led" has created this ambiguity where none existed!

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2017-February-27, 21:27, said:

So, a two-card ending with the ace and king of trumps in separate hands, and plain cards of different suits. I lead a plain card and say "win it". The plain card has already been covered. Do you think dummy should discard the other plain card, or ruff? The high trump is a card that it is known will win the trick, so dummy should ruff without asking. Even if the plain card was an ace, I think dummy has to ruff it when told to "win it" and even if dummy does not know the last card in each hand.

I don't know. When someone uses a loser designation like "win" they should get the worst result possible.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-27, 21:40, said:

I don't know. When someone uses a loser designation like "win" they should get the worst result possible.

But we know that the new laws are designed to protect people who can't follow suit, can't make sufficient calls, and can't name a card in dummy ...

[blackshoe]

Can't, or won't?

[pran]

lamford, on 2017-February-27, 18:07, said:

Then you are breaking the law, especially if dummy is last to play, when you are always obliged to play the lowest card that will now win the trick, and if dummy is second or third to play then you should play the lowest card that is "known" by you to win the trick.

Normally I am not last to play. Even to you that is a special case.

And it appears to me that you are saying precisely the same as I have said twice already.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-27, 18:26, said:

What do you do if you have no idea which card will win the trick? Sit there like a stone?

Of course not - that is a silly idea and I trust that you are not serious here.

When Declarer requests me to win the trick I must assume that he knows what he is requesting and do my best to accomplish his request.

This can only mean that I must play the card from my hand that has the greatest chance of being a winning card, i.e. my highest ranking card than can legally be played to the trick.

There are two exceptions to this:

1: If I have a contiguous sequcence of my highest ranking cards
2: (Which is contrary to your assumption above) If I have legal knowledge that a lower ranking card is sufficient to win the trick.


(If playing my highest card to the trick is not declarer's intention he should use the word "cover" rather than "win" with his request.)