Declarers change of mind

[pran]

I'm sorry, when did that happen? As far as I can tell, there was no interruption.

And as far as I understood OP the Director judged that the call had not (yet) been (verbally) completed by declarer.

 

Do we discuss facts or TD judgement?

 

According to TD judgement there was an interruption and he ruled that the call should be completed.

If the TD judged incorrectly and the call was indeed (verbally) completed then of course there was no interruption.

[iviehoff]

Even if she had said: "The Ace of Hearts no the nine" it would be a legal call for the nine.

Not unless she can achieve that unlikely thing of demonstrating that the designation of the HA was unintended. "Ace of Hearts" is a complete designation, so the card must now be played (L45C4) unless it was an unintended designation. Unintended designation seems very unlikely: declarer would have to demonstrate that while her mind told her mouth to say "nine of hearts" her mouth misbehaved and said "Ace" instead. This is such an unusual thing that it can be discounted for normal purposes.

 

The director ruled that "Ace" was a designation in progress, rather than an incomplete designation that declarer did not intend to progress to completion. This is the key factor. L45C4 says that a card must be played if it has been designated: case law on that is that if you stop your designation while it is in progress, you can start again, and are not held to the first syllables you produced. L46 tells us how to complete incomplete designations. The effect of the preceding case law is that it matters whether, when you said "Ace" that was all you were going to say, or whether you were in progress to say "Ace of something". If it turns out that dummy does not have the H, but stopped before completing it. In such a situation, you can stop, and start again.

 

I can understand that people might think from "Ace no the nine" (if correctly reported) that people might think he was never going to say "...of hearts", in which case "Ace" was not a designation in progress, but rather an incomplete designation that was going to be left incomplete. That is a judgment matter, and the director may have misjudged.

[nige1]

Agree with Vampyr, Blackshoe and Co. However woolly the law is, surely it's intended to cater for a slip of the tongue. "... No I'll have the nine" implies a slip of the mind

[iviehoff]

Agree with Vampyr, Blackshoe and Co. However woolly the law is, surely it's intended to cater for a slip of the tongue. "... No I'll have the nine" implies a slip of the mind

Neither of the things you say is apparent.

 

In general, in playing a card, there is a point of no return, but before you get there, you may change your mind. A player is discouraged from removing a card from their hand and then putting it back again, nevertheless if you haven't done what the law says is the point of no return (different for defender, and declarer), if you haven't reached the point of no return, you can put it back in your hand and change your mind. Thus it is with dummy also - if your designation is still in progress you haven't reached the point of no return, and are permitted to change your mind.

 

"No" can perfectly well mean "I am stopping that designation in progress and will now proceed to designated something else instead", which is entirely legal. The only thing that is unclear in this case is whether declarer was in fact still in progress in her designation with just "Ace", or intended to say no more.

[gordontd]

Thus it is with dummy also - if your designation is still in progress you haven't reached the point of no return, and are permitted to change your mind.

I'd rule that way too, but it's worth noting that at least one member of the WBFLC has said on BLML that he believes you are not allowed to change your mind once you have started your designation.

[tabaresort]

If the original designation was unintended, then declarer can of course change it. But the reason we are told that the TD gave for allowing the change is "the original designation was incomplete". That has nothing to do with it. If that was truly the TD's reason, then the TD has erred, and he needs to go back and decide whether the original designation was really unintended. Or he would if it was still within the correction period.

Sorry but I cannot agree. It does not matter if the original designation was unintended or indeed incomplete as in Ace... ie rank without suit. Law 46B3b says "if it is available and legal it is played". It's like stepping off the kerb in front of a bus... there are consequences. The fact that declarer called for an Ace... and there was only one Ace in dummy then it becomes the designated card. There is no correction period.

[bluejak]

I'd rule that way too, but it's worth noting that at least one member of the WBFLC has said on BLML that he believes you are not allowed to change your mind once you have started your designation.

As I have mentioned in other situations we must not follow individual comments from WBFLC members, if no better reason than we have several occasions where such members have disagreed with each other.

 

When a designation has not been made it can be changed.

 

Sorry but I cannot agree. It does not matter if the original designation was unintended or indeed incomplete as in Ace... ie rank without suit. Law 46B3b says "if it is available and legal it is played". It's like stepping off the kerb in front of a bus... there are consequences. The fact that declarer called for an Ace... and there was only one Ace in dummy then it becomes the designated card. There is no correction period.

There is no such statement in the Law book. However we do have an interpretation which has been around for half a century that if using spoken bidding you have started a call but not finished it then it is not made and may be changed for any reason at all. If you claim it is different for a designated card then I think you need at least one of the following:

 

• It to say so in the Law book
  
• The WBFLC to have said so officially
  
• A relevant authority to have said so
  
• Generally accepted logic as to why the situations are different
  

Since I believe we have none of the four in my view an incomplete designation [which is different from a partial designation] may be changed for any reason whatever.

[campboy]

Of course it matters whether "Ace" was inadvertent, since if it was, and declarer did not pause for thought, then it may be corrected (45C4). This is not inconsistent with law 46 since an inadvertent designation may be corrected even when the card has already been played (47C).

 

I do not understand the argument that there is a point of no return which has not been passed, since declarer did designate a rank but not a suit and law 46 says that if he does so he is bound by it.

 

The laws do not distinguish between a designation which is incomplete because it was always intended to be incomplete and a designation which is incomplete because declarer stopped making it halfway through. The Mystery of Edwin Drood is incomplete.

[tabaresort]

As far as I can see, it has not been established whether decarer paused for thought between calling for the ace or the nine. If he did, then of course you are right. If he did not, then the correction seems valid. What the correction designates, in terms of L46B3 is less clear: it may designate the nine of the suit in which dummy won the previous trick.

I don't think it matters whether declarer paused for thought between calling for the ace or the nine. There is as far as I am aware no law that allows for a pause "even in the same breath" perhaps you would let me know which one? Law 25 deals with calls not cards to be played.

[campboy]

There is no such statement in the Law book. However we do have an interpretation which has been around for half a century that if using spoken bidding you have started a call but not finished it then it is not made and may be changed for any reason at all. If you claim it is different for a designated card then I think you need at least one of the following:

 

• It to say so in the Law book
  

It does say so in the lawbook: law 46. There is no corresponding law which says that a player who specifies a level but not a denomination must bid at that level. This is why the two situations are completely different.

[tabaresort]

Neither of the things you say is apparent.

 

In general, in playing a card, there is a point of no return, but before you get there, you may change your mind. A player is discouraged from removing a card from their hand and then putting it back again, nevertheless if you haven't done what the law says is the point of no return (different for defender, and declarer), if you haven't reached the point of no return, you can put it back in your hand and change your mind. Thus it is with dummy also - if your designation is still in progress you haven't reached the point of no return, and are permitted to change your mind.

 

"No" can perfectly well mean "I am stopping that designation in progress and will now proceed to designated something else instead", which is entirely legal. The only thing that is unclear in this case is whether declarer was in fact still in progress in her designation with just "Ace", or intended to say no more.

Please tell me what law allows for such a change of mind? Thus it is with dummy also - if your designation is still in progress you haven't reached the point of no return, and are permitted to change your mind. Law 46B3b seems very clear, if declarer calls for a card even only by rank and it is available, it is played. To suggest anything else will make it a nightmare for directors.

[tabaresort]

As I have mentioned in other situations we must not follow individual comments from WBFLC members, if no better reason than we have several occasions where such members have disagreed with each other.

 

When a designation has not been made it can be changed.

 

 

There is no such statement in the Law book. However we do have an interpretation which has been around for half a century that if using spoken bidding you have started a call but not finished it then it is not made and may be changed for any reason at all. If you claim it is different for a designated card then I think you need at least one of the following:

 

• It to say so in the Law book
  
• The WBFLC to have said so officially
  
• A relevant authority to have said so
  
• Generally accepted logic as to why the situations are different
  

Since I believe we have none of the four in my view an incomplete designation [which is different from a partial designation] may be changed for any reason whatever.

Sorry I paraphrased the law which actually reads:

In which case law 46 B 3(b) applies

 

Law 46 - INCOMPLETE OR ERRONEOUS CALL OF CARD FROM DUMMY

46B 3. I f declarer designates a rank but not a suit.

 

(a) I n leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding

trick, provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit.

 

(b) In all other cases declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can

legally do so. If there are two or more such cards that can be legally played, declarer

must designate which is intended.

 

Highlights mine.

The fact that there has been "an interpretation which has been around for half a century that if using spoken bidding you have started a call but not finished it then it is not made and may be changed for any reason at all." hardly makes it right. Rather it is for those who believe that to show which law allows it. The law book has recently been re-written, does that mention the change?

Law 25 refers to inadvertent calls and if you are going to apply it to cards designated even incomplete then you need something more than an interpretation which is open so many differing opinions.

The laws are there to make the game straightforward without deviation. Interpretation muddy the water, they are what makes lawyers rich!

[c_corgi]

I don't think it matters whether declarer paused for thought between calling for the ace or the nine. There is as far as I am aware no law that allows for a pause "even in the same breath" perhaps you would let me know which one? Law 25 deals with calls not cards to be played.

 

 

Law 45C4b. Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. 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 (see Laws 47D and 16D1).

 

I don't see what difference the incompleteness of the designaation makes: just its unintendedness and the absence of pause for thought.

[Vampyr]

The laws do not distinguish between a designation which is incomplete because it was always intended to be incomplete and a designation which is incomplete because declarer stopped making it halfway through.

 

Indeed, and how is the director to make such a distinction? If he is required to, such rulings will suffer a total lack of consistency.

[barmar]

And as far as I understood OP the Director judged that the call had not (yet) been (verbally) completed by declarer.

That doesn't seem to be what was described. It seems like he decided that because it was an incomplete designation, it can be treated as if he hadn't yet completed it.

[blackshoe]

I think the table TD should have asked the declarer to repeat exactly what he said. Did he say "Ace. No, I'll have the nine" or "Ace, no, I'll have the nine"? If the former, then it seems to me that the TD's ruling of "incomplete designation" is nonsense, and that the declarer actually changed his mind. If the latter, then it looks more like an unintended call, although in that case it could really still go either way. I do not, as I've said upthread, think we can rule that the declarer can violate Law 46A (which describes the correct procedure in calling for a card from dummy) and then change his call on the grounds it was "incomplete". Not when we have all of Law 46B to tell us how to deal with incomplete calls.

[iviehoff]

Please tell me what law allows for such a change of mind? Thus it is with dummy also - if your designation is still in progress you haven't reached the point of no return, and are permitted to change your mind. Law 46B3b seems very clear, if declarer calls for a card even only by rank and it is available, it is played. To suggest anything else will make it a nightmare for directors.

As you correctly say, the law does not explicitly mention any distinction between designations still in progress and those left deliberately incomplete. But logically we must make that distinction, otherwise you will suffer the following much worse nightmare:

 

I call "Ace of Hearts". Secretary Bird now pipes up: "At the moment you called Ace, that was an incomplete or erroneous call of a card from dummy within the meaning of Law 46, and thus by Law 46B3 you are deemed to have continued the previous suit, which was spades. Thus at the point you had said "Ace", the Spade Ace became a played card, and you cannot wriggle out of that by attempting to append the words "of hearts", it's too late at that point. And don't think saying "Heart Ace" next time will save you, you will have been deemed to call for a low heart as soon as the word "Heart" is out of your mouth."

 

Clearly, this is not an acceptable interpretation of the laws, but it is the logical consequence of what you say.

 

Your ability to change your mind about playing a card from a closed hand before the point of no return is not explicitly stated either, it simply follows from the fact that you haven't played it until you reach the point of no return as described in L45. Thus it is with playing from dummy - the point of no return there is completing the designation. Directors, therefore, do suffer from the problem of having to decide whether "Ace no nine of hearts" was a designation in progress that didn't come to fruition, and thus can be stopped and changed to "nine of hearts", or was an incomplete designation that was never intended to be completed. And it isn't really such a nightmare, it rarely comes up.

[nige1]

I call "Ace of Hearts". Secretary Bird now pipes up: "At the moment you called Ace, that was an incomplete or erroneous call of a card from dummy within the meaning of Law 46, and thus by Law 46B3 you are deemed to have continued the previous suit, which was spades. Thus at the point you had said "Ace", the Spade Ace became a played card, and you cannot wriggle out of that by attempting to append the words "of hearts", it's too late at that point. And don't think saying "Heart Ace" next time will save you, you will have been deemed to call for a low heart as soon as the word "Heart" is out of your mouth."comes up.

The law may be bad but, mercifully, it's not bad enough to allow SB's interpretation. Declarer simply clarifies which ace.:)

[iviehoff]

Declarer simply clarifies which ace.:)

The law denies the possibility of such a clarification, (edit: correction to previous post) except in the circumstances that its rules on how the statement is to be interpreted does not lead to a single card.

 

It is all much easier if you follow the established interpretation, and logical common sense, namely that a designation is not made until the player making it has reached the point where he has said all he intends to say.

 

If the designation that was embarked upon was "Ace of hearts", and the player stops part way through, it is perfectly obvious that it was stopped in progress at any point of stopping, except just one, namely if the stopping occured precisely immediately after the completion of the word "Ace". Because there is only this precise single point of ambiguity, that is why it is rarely a problem.

Edited February 8, 2012 by iviehoff

[pran]

The law may be bad but, mercifully, it's not bad enough to allow SB's interpretation. Declarer simply clarifies which ace.:)

The law denies the possibility of such a clarification: rather it tells us just how we must interpret such incomplete statements. Moreover if a player says "Ace" and no more, and has more than one Ace, neither of them in the suit most recently played, (or some other incomplete designatoin that cannot be resolved by the interpretations set out) the defenders are given the right to choose which one.

[...]

May I ask where (in the laws) did you find foundation for such a statement?

 

I find:

If declarer designates a rank but not a suit

{a} In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit.

{b} In all other cases declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so; but if there are two or more such cards that can be legally played declarer must designate which is intended.

most clarifying. (My emphasize)

[iviehoff]

May I ask where (in the laws) did you find foundation for such a statement

Sorry, you are right. Mixed it up with 46B5. Fixed previous post.