lamford Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 [hv=pc=n&s=sakjhjt84dkq6c864&w=sqt653hq63dj874cj&n=s84hk72d93cakt932&e=s972ha95dat52cq75&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(12-14)p3nppp]399|300[/hv]There was a bit of an incident again last night at a local club in North London. South, our friend who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, is an Arsenal supporter and was gloating to East, a Spurs supporter, at the beginning of the hand. The auction was brief, and common throughout the room, and West led a fourth best spade. South won with the jack and played a club to the ace, and then said "king". Just as dummy was about to place the king of clubs on the table, South realised his error and added "of hearts". The interval between "king" and "of hearts" was about a second. East, who was already somewhat unhappy, said "too late", but SB was there quoting Law 46 in its entirety without pause for breath. East argued that he had to continue with the king of clubs when he said "king", under 46B3(a), but SB pointed out that this only applied to an incomplete or erroneous call, and "king of hearts" was neither of those. The director was called. In poker a string bet of the form "call" followed after a brief interval by "and raise" is disallowed, and just the call stands. Does this apply to bridge, and how would you rule? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 An incomplete designation is different from a designation in progress. There is a point at which the latter becomes the former, and once it does the deeming happens and it is too late to do anything about it. From your description it sounds like that is the case here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted November 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 An incomplete designation is different from a designation in progress. There is a point at which the latter becomes the former, and once it does the deeming happens and it is too late to do anything about it. From your description it sounds like that is the case here.I don't have a "designation in progress" in my law book, nor any reference to the situation. I think that the point at which it is too late is when "dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table"(45B). This had not happened in this case. Otherwise the opponents could insist on the king of clubs whenever declarer said "king of hearts" with any interval between "king" and "of hearts". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 I don't have a "designation in progress" in my law book, nor any reference to the situation. I think that the point at which it is too late is when "dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table". (45B) This had not happened in this case.I got done for this one in Pula, partner started reaching for the king of the same suit and before he picked it up I corrected him, but I was not allowed to change it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 What does it mean that declarer is deemed to have called for the king of clubs, if not that the legal consequences of having called for the king of clubs apply? Once we deem that he has called for the king of clubs he can no longer call for something else. I see no reason why it matters that dummy has not yet moved the card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted November 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 I got done for this one in Pula, partner started reaching for the king of the same suit and before he picked it up I corrected him, but I was not allowed to change it.I wouldn't assume that any ruling in Pula was correct, much as I like the event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted November 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 What does it mean that declarer is deemed to have called for the king of clubs, if not that the legal consequences of having called for the king of clubs apply? Once we deem that he has called for the king of clubs he can no longer call for something else. I see no reason why it matters that dummy has not yet moved the card.Because that is what must be played if he just says "king". I hope you are not suggesting that if he said "king of ... um ... hearts", as players sometimes do, that would be an incomplete designation. Every designation is incomplete for some period of time. And if he had said "king of diamonds", then he would be able to choose. What we need to know is when it becomes an incomplete designation within the meaning of this Law. In poker, the principle is that it must be in the same breath to be valid. If the laws stated that a call would be deemed incomplete if there was a pause for thought after the specification of rank, then I would agree with you. They do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 IMO if the interval before the clarification ("of hearts") is long enough for dummy to react to it ("dummy was about to place the king of clubs"), then it is long enough to disallow the clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted November 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 IMO if the interval before the clarification ("of hearts") is long enough for dummy to react to it ("dummy was about to place the king of clubs"), then it is long enough to disallow the clarification.That is very sensible, but it is making up a rule that does not exist. I think we should just say:a) Was there an incomplete call? No, declarer completed it by adding "of hearts". No time limit is imposed by the laws for completion.b) Was there an erroneous call? No, the king of hearts is in dummy.c) Therefore none of 46B applies, and the king of hearts is a played card. Of course the law should be changed so that 46B3 reads:"<snip> 3. If declarer designates a rank but not a suit or designates a suit after pause for thought<snip>"Until that change occurs, the correct ruling is that the king of hearts is played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 That is very sensible, but it is making up a rule that does not exist. I think we should just say:a) Was there an incomplete call? No, declarer completed it by adding "of hearts". No time limit is imposed by the laws for completion.b) Was there an erroneous call? No, the king of hearts is in dummy.c) Therefore none of 46B applies, and the king of hearts is a played card. Of course the law should be changed so that 46B3 reads:"<snip> 3. If declarer designates a rank but not a suit or designates a suit after pause for thought<snip>"Until that change occurs, the correct ruling is that the king of hearts is played.The important question for the Director to settle is:"Was there a change of mind?" From the description there was indeed (Quote from OP: South realised his error and added "of hearts) unless South most convincingly intended the King of hearts all the time. I am not convinced that he did. Frankly I have a problem seeing any purpose of leading the ♥K from dummy, but I see a very good reason for continuing with a small club from dummy. This option is obviously spoiled at the moment he said "King". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted November 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 The important question for the Director to settle is:"Was there a change of mind?" From the description there was indeed (Quote from OP: South realised his error and added "of hearts) unless South most convincingly intended the King of hearts all the time. I am not convinced that he did. Frankly I have a problem seeing any purpose of leading the ♥K from dummy, but I see a very good reason for continuing with a small club from dummy. This option is obviously spoiled at the moment he said "King".Not at all. 45C4(a) states:"A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play." That clearly occurred. 45C4(b) permits the player to change an unintended designation but certainly does not oblige the player to change a legal play. It is completely irrelevant for what purpose the king of hearts is led from dummy. Declarer had to specify one or other king, and chose the one that made the contract not the one that failed. If he had remained silent, and left the call incomplete, he would also have failed as the king of clubs would have been required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Not at all. 45C4(a) states:"A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play." 45C4(b) permits the player to change an unintended designation but certainly does not oblige the player to change a legal play. It is completely irrelevant for what purpose the king of hearts is led from dummy. Declarer had to specify one or other king, and chose the one that made the contract not the one that failed. If he had remained silent, and left the call incomplete, he would also have failed as the king of clubs would have been required.Was the call for the King of clubs (implied by L46B3{a} as a continuation from the Ace of clubs) really unintended? I believe no, for the reasons I gave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 I wouldn't assume that any ruling in Pula was correct, much as I like the event.Director was I think a Norwegian, I'm not sure if he frequents this parish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 That is very sensible, but it is making up a rule that does not exist. I think we should just say:The existence of much of 46B implies that some time limit should be assumed. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as an incomplete designation -- we would just sit there and wait for declarer to finish naming the card, since he could take as long as he wishes. You consistently try to read the laws as if they're a computer program, being executed by a device with no common sense, knowledge of how the game is commonly played, or understanding of context. They're written to be applied by experienced bridge players, who are able to make inferences like this. At the table, it's almost always obvious to everyone when declarer is changing his mind rather than just completing his designation in a situation like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 In poker a string bet of the form "call" followed after a brief interval by "and raise" is disallowed, and just the call stands. Does this apply to bridge, and how would you rule?Not exactly. In most forms of the game, the announcement "I see your bet and I raise..." is not permitted, despite what one sees in all the movies of poker being played in the Old West. This is one form of string bet, in which the problem is that the initial part of the phrase "I see your bet..." might get a reaction out of another player, and then the following "...and I raise..." might be based on the reaction. The proper way to make a raise is to either just make it or to announce "Raise" and then the amount of the total bet or the amount of the raise. If one announces a raise but not the amount, one can then put out the entire bet in one motion or one can divide the chips into two motions, the first being the amount of the preceding bet (the call) and the second the amount of the raise. Of course, if one announces the size of one's total bet or the amount of one's raise, it doesn't matter how many motions are involved since the amount of the bet is fixed. Verbal declarations are binding (with some well-defined exceptions). Another form of string bet is to put out some chips and then reach back to one's stack and put out more chips. Again, this is not permitted, as the initial bet may get a reaction out of another player and the bettor is not allowed to base the balance of his bet on the reaction obtained by the first part of his bet. The proper way to make a bet or raise is to either put out all of the chips bet in one motion or to announce the size of the total bet (or the amount of the raise, which necessarily includes the amount of the preceding bet) and then put out the chips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Declarer is not allowed to change his mind once a designation is made. No Law forbids him from changing his mind during a designation. So it is a matter of judgement for the TD whether he had finished his designation when declarer said "king" or not. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted November 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 You consistently try to read the laws as if they're a computer program, being executed by a device with no common sense, knowledge of how the game is commonly played, or understanding of context. They're written to be applied by experienced bridge players, who are able to make inferences like this.People often finds faults in others that are most prominent in themselves. In another thread you wrote: "Therefore, dummy's card is not a lead out of turn, it's a premature play. 57C2 says that a premature play by declarer from dummy is a played card. It doesn't specify that it has to be a legal play, so I would deal with that separately." and then, inconsistently, in the same thread, not having applied the qualifier "legal" before the second "play" where it was clearly (as pran tells us) intended: "I think the Laws can be understood as if they had such qualifiers everywhere that it's necessary to allow the laws on infractions to be interpreted reasonably." Most people would regard "incomplete designation" as one not completed within a reasonable time, whatever that time is. Otherwise anybody calling for any card from dummy would be forced to play a card of the same rank from the suit just played if legal! As bluejak states, nothing in the laws prevents declarer changing his mind before completing a designation. We had a similar one in a match against gordontd where he called for "qu"... before correcting it to "ace", when the king popped up on his left. All four players at the table, including three TDs, agreed that nothing in the laws prevented a designation being changed until it was completed. In this case, the designation had not been completed, and was completed within a second, so the change of mind is irrelevant. And I think that the Laws should to some extent be treated like a computer program and debugged so that they work properly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 I think this is very similar to "the deuce, please"except that in the old thread it was more obvious what declarer's intentions were. Still, OP says that South "realized his error". Is it so that if it is the TD's judgement that declarer intended to play ♣K yet it isn't "incotrovertible", we should allow declarer to play ♥K? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted November 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 I think this is very similar to "the deuce, please"except that in the old thread it was more obvious what declarer's intentions were. Still, OP says that South "realized his error". Is it so that if it is the TD's judgement that declarer intended to play ♣K yet it isn't "incotrovertible", we should allow declarer to play ♥K?No, that test only applies in the case of a played card where the intention was different (45C4b) or an incomplete or erroneous call (46B). We have:"45C4. (a) A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play", so I find it hard to accept the arguments that the king of hearts is not a played card in this case. Was it named or otherwise designated? Yes. If we decide that it was an incomplete designation, you would be right. And FWIW, I think declarer's original intention, to play the king of clubs, was crystal clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 No, that test only applies in the case of a played card where the intention was different (45C4b) or an incomplete or erroneous call (46B). We have:"45C4. (a) A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play", so I find it hard to accept the arguments that the king of hearts is not a played card in this case. Was it named or otherwise designated? Yes. If we decide that it was an incomplete designation, you would be right. And FWIW, I think declarer's original intention, to play the king of clubs, was crystal clear.If you go that route, you might well end up with the ♥K as a fifth card played to the trick. Do you really want to go there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted November 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 If you go that route, you might well end up with the ♥K as a fifth card played to the trick. Do you really want to go there?I don't think that there is any possibility of that. The previous trick had four cards, and had been completed before the call of "king". Either the designation of "king" was an incomplete designation because "of hearts" did not follow soon enough after, or the designation "king of hearts" was a complete designation, in which case the king of clubs is irrelevant as it has not been named. How soon after does "of hearts" have to be stated? The Laws are silent on this. And would you punish someone with a speech impediment, as you considered giving a slow play PP to someone with a medical condition in another thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 I don't think that there is any possibility of that. The previous trick had four cards, and had been completed before the call of "king". Either the designation of "king" was an incomplete designation because "of hearts" did not follow soon enough after, or the designation "king of hearts" was a complete designation, in which case the king of clubs is irrelevant as it has not been named. How soon after does "of hearts" have to be stated? The Laws are silent on this. And would you punish someone with a speech impediment, as you considered giving a slow play PP to someone with a medical condition in another thread?Did I? Well, I suppose I must have had a reason. It might have been better if I'd said (in this thread) "two cards played to the same trick by the same player" since you seemed to be headed in the direction of "both the ♣K and the ♥K are played cards (albeit for different reasons)". "Ruling" does not equal "punishment", and I wish people would stop acting as if it does. :( From the information in the OP, it appears to me that when declarer said "King" he intended to call for the ♣K, and then he changed his mind. I think that he completed his designation when he said "king" (IOW, he had no intention originally of adding "of clubs" in spite of that being correct procedure). I do not think his later intention falls under the "incontrovertible" clause, I think he changed his mind after he said all he was going to say about the ♣K, so I would rule that the ♣K was played. Now, he also "designated" the ♥K. That's not a played card, it's an extraneous noise, IMO, since I've ruled he already played the ♣K. Do you disagree? BTW, I also think that "how long" or 'what's the trigger" or whatever questions about at what point an incomplete designation can no longer be changed are misguided. It's a matter for TD judgement, based on the facts he is able to gather, and every case is different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted November 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 From the information in the OP, it appears to me that when declarer said "King" he intended to call for the ♣K, and then he changed his mind. I think that he completed his designation when he said "king" (IOW, he had no intention originally of adding "of clubs" in spite of that being correct procedure). I do not think his later intention falls under the "incontrovertible" clause, I think he changed his mind after he said all he was going to say about the ♣K, so I would rule that the ♣K was played. Now, he also "designated" the ♥K. That's not a played card, it's an extraneous noise, IMO, since I've ruled he already played the ♣K. Do you disagree?If you rule that the king of clubs is played, then I think that the attempt to play the king of hearts is a disallowed attempt to change that play, nothing more, nothing less. This trick so far has only one card, either the king of clubs or the king of hearts, and I cannot see where a fifth card to the same trick comes from. And I think that the "incontrovertible" clause is a red herring as well. That only appears in 46B, so you cannot apply it unless there has been an incomplete or erroneous call. If you decide that the call "king of hearts" is neither incomplete nor erroneous, then it does not make a hapenworth (less than one cent) of difference what the intention of the declarer was. An unintended designation has to be corrected without pause for thought, but there is no requirement to complete an incomplete designation without pause for thought. There should be. But I agree with you that punish is the wrong verb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iviehoff Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 I don't have a "designation in progress" in my law book, nor any reference to the situation.Indeed not, it is a matter of interpretation. But it is the only interpretation that makes sense. The law provides for the interpretation of incomplete designations, thus we understand that designations can be left incomplete. The law says nothing on the subject of when we treat a designation as incomplete, and when we allow its completion, so we have to use our common sense. Fortunately, there is only one interpretation that makes sense. If you say "king of hearts" without a break, no one can say "But in saying 'king' you made an incomplete designation, so you must play the king of clubs". Yet there is nothing in the law that ensures such a ridiculous interpretation is wrong, because it says nothing about completing the incomplete. So, as a matter of practicality, since the law tells us how to interpret the incomplete, we need to distinguish between a designation that is in progress, and one that, although incomplete in the legal sense, has stopped and must now be interpreted according to the laws of incomplete designations. The practical distinction is to say that a designation which is no longer in progress, because declarer said all that he intended at the time of starting it, has stopped and must therefore be interpreted. This incident is an example of precisely what declarer cannot do. So at post 1 you had an accurate statement of how common sense requires the law to be interpreted in this area, and how in practice anyone sensible interprets it, and have been arguing the toss ever since. This one is so obvious I don't thing we are in need of an improvement to the law's wording. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 This one is so obvious I don't thing we are in need of an improvement to the law's wording. Perhaps not, but it is a shame that declarers who always give a complete designation are placed at a disadvantage. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.