[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-21, 09:34, said:

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?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2012-November-21, 09:54, said:

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.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-21, 10:13, said:

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.

[iviehoff]

lamford, on 2012-November-20, 05:55, said:

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.

[Vampyr]

iviehoff, on 2012-November-22, 03:36, said:

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.

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2012-November-22, 03:36, said:

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]

lamford, on 2012-November-22, 05:04, said:

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]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-November-20, 09:42, said:

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]

jvage, on 2012-November-22, 07:52, said:

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]

lamford, on 2012-November-22, 05:04, said:

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]

iviehoff, on 2012-November-22, 08:38, said:

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]

iviehoff, on 2012-November-22, 08:38, said:

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]

lamford, on 2012-November-23, 16:01, said:

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]

axman, on 2012-November-23, 17:46, said:

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]

Sjoerds, on 2012-November-23, 10:12, said:

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]

lamford, on 2012-November-23, 18:19, said:

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]

lamford, on 2012-November-23, 18:19, said:

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:

Quote

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

Quote

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?

Quote

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.