Incomplete or Erroneous

[lamford]

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.

I am generally playing devil's advocate in this post, as I usually do, but I do not see the difference between the aforementioned case where gordontd said "qu..." and then changed it to "ace". Surely that was a change of mind before completing a designation, and gordontd stated at the time that he had always ruled that a change was permitted until the designation was complete, and the other TDs at the table thought it was so obviously the case as not to require a ruling. If he had stopped at "qu...", and dummy had played the queen, there has to be a time at which he would not be allowed to change his play. My view is that, by analogy, he should be able to add "of hearts" to "king" if he does so without pause for thought, regardless of his original intention.

[c_corgi]

My view is that, by analogy, he should be able to add "of hearts" to "king" if he does so without pause for thought, regardless of his original intention.

 

Why "pause for thought"? "Sufficient pause that the director deems him culpable for any confusion that arose" seems both sensible and the obvious way to interpret the current laws.

[jvage]

Director was I think a Norwegian, I'm not sure if he frequents this parish.

 

There were definitely no Norwegian directors in Pula (but 3 Norwegian players, including me, got a TD-authorisation). I don't think there were any Swedish or Danish TD's either, but this I can't say for sure.

 

John

[Cyberyeti]

There were definitely no Norwegian directors in Pula (but 3 Norwegian players, including me, got a TD-authorisation). I don't think there were any Swedish or Danish TD's either, but this I can't say for sure.

 

John

It's possible I confused a Norwegian flag on his name plate with an Icelandic one (the two are basically the same with red/blue reversed), but was definitely one of those two.

[iviehoff]

I do not see the difference between the aforementioned case where gordontd said "qu..." and then changed it to "ace". Surely that was a change of mind before completing a designation

There is a clear and obvious difference and you are playing a semantic game to obscure it.

 

Both "king" (stopping there) and "qu..." are incomplete designations, but they are incomplete in importantly different ways. The former is incomplete because the player had no intention of completing it, whereas the latter is incomplete because it is still in progress.

 

In terms of playing cards physically out of your hand, you can touch the card and take it out of your hand and it still isn't played yet, but ultimately in the physical motion towards playing it, there comes a point of no return. For the purpose of designations, we say that the point of no return is when you have made the designation you intended to make when you started it. If you don't get that far, you can "put it back in your hand".

 

If we do not make this distinction between those that are incomplete but in progress to be completed, and those that are incomplete but no longer in progress, the law on interpreting incomplete designations is simply unworkable for precisely the reason that the example in this thread illustrates. I think for practical reasons we need a law on interpreting incomplete designations, and it is rarely a problem.

 

I appreciate you enjoy playing devil's advocate, but I really don't think there is any mileage in this one.

 

A slightly more interesting case might be if the player now argued "I was always saying 'king of hearts' I just had a little mental seizure that resulted in an inadvertent delay after 'king'." We might give the benefit of the doubt to a player who suffers a speech impediment, sneezed or had a coughing fit. But most of the time the player is not going to get the benefit of the doubt on that one, because there will be no evidence for it and it is much more likely a change of mind. The director will just have to judge, as in many other rulings.

[blackshoe]

The director will just have to judge, as in many other rulings.

This.

[gordontd]

Some designations are incomplete because they are unfinished. Others are finished, but incomplete because they don't fulfil the requirements of the Laws.

[iviehoff]

...to repeat what Campboy said at post #2, merely using a different terminology.

[Sjoerds]

You can discuss law46 but in this situation it looks simple to me

 

- The opps called me, so something has happened

- declarer had played ♣A in the last trick.

- There was a pause or so between "King" and "of hearts"

- the play of the ♥K is IMO not a normal play

- declarer has given no reasonable explanation for his play

So I rule declarer changed his mind and had the intention to play the ♣K

[lamford]

Both "king" (stopping there) and "qu..." are incomplete designations, but they are incomplete in importantly different ways. The former is incomplete because the player had no intention of completing it, whereas the latter is incomplete because it is still in progress.

Your interpretation is very reasonable, but there are a couple of points that I would make. You would, I presume, rule differently if the declarer had said "king of" rather than "king" before changing his mind and then saying "hearts". It would then be clear that he did have an intention of completing it, and therefore the designation would be in progress.

 

The other point is that someone who always specifies the suit, as our friend from the neigbouring club always does, would presumably have added "of clubs" if he had not changed his mind. Would you rule differently in the case of someone who always gives a complete designation?

[axman]

 

 

The other point is that someone who always specifies the suit, as our friend from the neigbouring club always does, would presumably have added "of clubs" if he had not changed his mind. Would you rule differently in the case of someone who always gives a complete designation?

 

For a player with such a reputation, it might be said that it would never occur to his opponents to call the TD in the first place. Not so, you say? Well, not so, I say as well.

 

A player ought to know before he acts such that when he has made the first touch he will complete the move post haste. Thus the necessity of holding players to the same standard… the standard certainly needs to contain justice.

[lamford]

A player ought to know before he acts such that when he has made the first touch he will complete the move post haste.

Under which Law? And I presume you are using "touch" as "beginning the designation". If you are using a chess analogy, a player touching a piece must move it, but may complete the move in any legal way as much as an hour or so later, depending on his available time.

[lamford]

So I rule declarer changed his mind and had the intention to play the ♣K

That is not in dispute, and SB will confirm that was indeed his original intention. He will also confirm that if he had not changed his mind, he would have continued "of clubs", as he always did whenever clubs was the selected suit. The question is whether he is entitled to change his mind before completing the designation.

[c_corgi]

That is not in dispute, and SB will confirm that was indeed his original intention. He will also confirm that if he had not changed his mind, he would have continued "of clubs", as he always did whenever clubs was the selected suit. The question is whether he is entitled to change his mind before completing the designation.

 

I think he is entitled to change his mind. Also that he is entitled to pause for thought. But if he wishes to do so, then he should follow his incomplete designation by clarifying what is happening, such as "King, no: I need to pause for thought while I reconsider this card." Otherwise, if he pauses without good reason, the opponents cannot be faulted for assuming he did not intend to complete his designation.

[blackshoe]

That is not in dispute, and SB will confirm that was indeed his original intention. He will also confirm that if he had not changed his mind, he would have continued "of clubs", as he always did whenever clubs was the selected suit. The question is whether he is entitled to change his mind before completing the designation.

As has been said 343 times already, this is a matter for TD judgement. Here's mine:

 

From the OP: South realised his error and added "of hearts". The interval between "king" and "of hearts" was about a second.

 

Law 46B3(a): In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply, except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible:

 

3. 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.

On the evidence, the incomplete designation "King" was a call for the ♣K per Law 46B3(a) unless declarer's different intention cannot be denied. However, declarer has denied a different intention himself when he said his original intention was to call for the ♣K. So, can he change his mind?

 

Law 45C4{b}: Until his partner has played a card, a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought.

The designation of the ♣K was not unintended, so no, he cannot change it.

[nige1]

it is a shame that declarers who always give a complete designation are placed at a disadvantage.

Paul says SB always complies with the law by specifying both rank and suit . Hence, when SB said "King of Clubs" he made his usual legally correct designation. If, instead, he had said just "King" he would have been guilty of an illegal and incomplete designation. IMO directors should encourage correct practice by starting to penalize habitual infractions of the latter kind. When moderaters indicate that they don't like the law and wish to change it, perhaps they should delete their own posts or move them to a different forum :)

[blackshoe]

Paul says SB always complies with the law by specifying both rank and suit . Hence, when SB said "King of Clubs" he made his usual legally correct designation. If, instead, he had said just "King" he would have been guilty of an illegal and incomplete designation.

Go back and read the OP. Not only did declarer just say "King", he also said his original intention was to play the king of clubs.

 

IMO directors should encourage correct practice by starting to penalize habitual infractions of the latter kind.

Good luck with that.

 

When moderaters indicate that they don't like the law and wish to change it, perhaps they should delete their own posts or move them to a different forum :)

No moderator has expressed that opinion in this thread.

[Trinidad]

This thread reminds me of this happening in real life. In English the rank of the card is named first, followed by the suit (ace of spades). In many other languages the suit is named first (spade ace). This occurred in Sweden ("spade ace territory") in a try out torunament for the national team. Top players from all over the world were invited as sparring partners and the tournament language was English.

 

My wife and I are kibitzing a Swedish pair playing against Manoppo-Lasut. The Swedish dummy is going to the toilet and asks my wife to play the dummy on his behalf. Somewhere in trick 3 or 4, declarer says: "spade". My wife takes a small spade, RHO pulls a card and declarer says "ace!!!". I would say that there were about 2 seconds between "spade" and "ace!!!". There was no doubt in anybody's mind that declarer had intended a small spade, that his "incomplete designation had been completed" and that it took him 2 seconds to change his play. My wife feels a little silly and somewhat disgusted at the same time, looks at the Indonesians what should happen now, and they tell her: "no problem" as she changes the small spade to the ace.

 

In the end declarer goes down one. Then Manoppo turns to my wife and observes while winking his eye: "If he would have played a small spade, like you suggested, he would have made it."

 

Rik

[nige1]

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.

IMO: ♥K is legally played. But the law about correct designation is fine. Declarer should specify both rank and suit. Law-makers have created avoidable problems by complicating and relaxing the law to cope with sloppy designations. Illegal designations should be penalized. -- with exceptions made on request for dumb declarers and deaf dummies. More complex legal shenanigans would confuse players and make the game less enjoyable.