[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]

tabaresort, on 2012-February-06, 10:43, said:

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]

iviehoff, on 2012-February-07, 07:37, said:

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]

nige1, on 2012-February-07, 19:58, said:

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.

This post has been edited by iviehoff: 2012-February-08, 08:05

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2012-February-08, 03:03, said:

nige1, on 2012-February-07, 19:58, said:

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:

Law 46B3 said:

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]

pran, on 2012-February-08, 06:17, said:

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.