[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-05, 08:14, said:

Which Law, Sven?

Do I need a law to inhibit a player interrupting another player's call while it is uncompleted?

[blackshoe]

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

[campboy]

There are only three possibilities for "Ace". Either it has been completed, or it is in the process of being completed, or it is an incomplete designation. The first clearly is not the case; declarer is not in the process of completing it since he has started saying something else; so the third is the case and we apply the appropriate law.

[blackshoe]

And the appropriate law says he called for the ace of hearts. wtp?

[c_corgi]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-05, 17:43, said:

And the appropriate law says he called for the ace of hearts. wtp?

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.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-05, 17:31, said:

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]

pran, on 2012-February-03, 23:51, said:

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]

nige1, on 2012-February-06, 07:37, said:

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]

iviehoff, on 2012-February-06, 08:55, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-04, 15:55, said:

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]

gordontd, on 2012-February-06, 09:20, said:

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.

tabaresort, on 2012-February-06, 09:52, said:

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]

c_corgi, on 2012-February-05, 18:18, said:

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]

bluejak, on 2012-February-06, 10:07, said:

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]

iviehoff, on 2012-February-06, 08:55, said:

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]

bluejak, on 2012-February-06, 10:07, said:

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]

tabaresort, on 2012-February-06, 10:30, said:

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]

campboy, on 2012-February-06, 10:29, said:

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]

pran, on 2012-February-06, 01:12, said:

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.