[tabaresort]

In our club tonight declarer was in dummy which contained the AK** hearts and no other honour cards in other suits. She called for an Ace but then said "no I will have the 9". I said that the Ace must now be played and the TD was called. He ruled that as she had not completed her designation then her change of mind was allowed.
Although accepting the Td's decision it did seem to me that if declarer calls for an Ace to be played and there is only 1 ace in dummy then that card must be played.
As this was our major club competition these rulings are important so any help please.

[bluejak]

Compare a spoken bid of "One sp". This has not been completed so the call is not made and may be changed.

Similarly if the TD decides she has not completed her designation then the card has not been called and may be changed. Yes, I know it is complicated by the fact that "Ace" may be all a player was going to say, so the designation may have been completed, but that is a judgement for the TD to make: if he believes the designation was completed it may not be changed, if not then it may. The fact that there was only one ace in dummy is part of the evidence he will use but is not enough of itself.

So the ruling was perfectly possibly correct, being a judgement that the TD made.

[jillybean]

Assuming this is ACBL...

Isn't this a LAW 46 INCOMPLETE OR ERRONEOUS CALL OF A CARD FROM DUMMY call?
46 A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer
should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

In which case law 46 B 3(b) applies

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.

Thankfully there is no room for the directors discretion, the card is played.

[pran]

jillybean, on 2012-February-03, 18:32, said:

Assuming this is ACBL...

Isn't this a LAW 46 INCOMPLETE OR ERRONEOUS CALL OF A CARD FROM DUMMY call?
46 A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer
should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

In which case law 46 B 3(b) applies

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.

Thankfully there is no room for the directors discretion, the card is played.

This is a matter of law, not regulation, so ACBL or not ACBL should be irrelevant.

IMO there is a significant difference between verbally "completing" an incomplete designation in which case Law 46 applies, and changing a designation while speaking.

Even if she had said: "The Ace of Hearts no the nine" it would be a legal call for the nine.

[jillybean]

Ok, you comprehend the event differently than I did.

I understood "She called for an Ace but then said "no I will have the 9". As 2 seperate events.

And the directors ruling "He ruled that as she had not completed her designation then her change of mind was allowed." to say that it was because
she had not completed her designation that the change was allowed.

[dburn]

Even if she had said: "The Ace of Hearts no the nine" it would be a legal call for the nine.

No, it would not - the very idea is absurd. Suppose for example that dummy did not have the nine of hearts (from the original post I have no idea whether it did or not). And suppose that dummy did have the nine of, for example, spades. Now, when declarer says "The Ace of Hearts no the nine", for which card has declarer called, if any?

[tabaresort]

bluejak, on 2012-February-03, 18:07, said:

Compare a spoken bid of "One sp". This has not been completed so the call is not made and may be changed.

Similarly if the TD decides she has not completed her designation then the card has not been called and may be changed. Yes, I know it is complicated by the fact that "Ace" may be all a player was going to say, so the designation may have been completed, but that is a judgement for the TD to make: if he believes the designation was completed it may not be changed, if not then it may. The fact that there was only one ace in dummy is part of the evidence he will use but is not enough of itself.

So the ruling was perfectly possibly correct, being a judgement that the TD made.

In the event the word Ace was used. Having checked the rule book I note law 46B3b states that " If declarer designates a rank but not a suit then declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he legally do so" Surely then if dummy has only one Ace then this must be deemed to the designated card and must be played.

[tabaresort]

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

This is a matter of law, not regulation, so ACBL or not ACBL should be irrelevant.

IMO there is a significant difference between verbally "completing" an incomplete designation in which case Law 46 applies, and changing a designation while speaking.

Even if she had said: "The Ace of Hearts no the nine" it would be a legal call for the nine.

Doesn't Law 46 covers incomplete designation ie rank but not suit? In that case 46B3b says that if able then the card corresponding to the rank must be played. If there is only one then that has been designated and a change to the 9 should not be allowed.

[tabaresort]

jillybean, on 2012-February-04, 00:02, said:

Ok, you comprehend the event differently than I did.

I understood "She called for an Ace but then said "no I will have the 9". As 2 seperate events.

And the directors ruling "He ruled that as she had not completed her designation then her change of mind was allowed." to say that it was because
she had not completed her designation that the change was allowed.

exactly right. However because she did not specify the suit Td allowed the change. But doesn't law 46 deal with rank and not suit called for and rules that the suit corresponding to the rank must be played. Providing there are not more than one? There being only one Ace in dummy means that it should be played.

[c_corgi]

"Ace of hearts - no the nine" sounds like a designation of the 9 of hearts. This suggests that declarer has made one call (by a roundabout route) rather than two calls (the one for the 9 superceding the one for the ace). Therefore Law 46B4* allows declarer to void his initial call by correcting it to a card which is not in dummy.

If, on the other hand, declarer's statement is interpreted as two separate calls and the 9 of hearts is not present but the 9 of spades is, then it sounds like a call for the 9 of spades, although quite likely to be deemed that "declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible". But if the correction designates a card not present, then maybe it is the correction which is void and the ace of hearts becomes played (in terms of the wording, "the only legal card available for declarer to designate").




*45B4: "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card."

[Vampyr]

jillybean, on 2012-February-03, 18:32, said:

Thankfully there is no room for the directors discretion, the card is played.

This seems so clear I am astonished that anyone disagrees.

[blackshoe]

There is a correct procedure for calling for a card from dummy (Law 46A). Declarer did not use it, which is an infraction of Law 46A. Law 46B exists to give guidance as to what to do when there is such an infraction. It is not there to allow someone to get away with committing an infraction. So look elsewhere in the laws. Law 45 defines when a card is played. 45C4 says that when a card is named or otherwise designated, it must be played, but that such a designation can be changed if that is done "without pause for thought". So, was there a pause between "Ace" and "no, I will have the nine"? Was the ♥9 in dummy? If the ♥9 was not in dummy, I'd be inclined to rule there was a pause for thought in any case. If it was in dummy, and there was a pause between the two statements, I would rule there was a pause for thought.

I note that the table TD apparently referred to "declarer's change of mind". This seems to me to indicate there was a pause for thought. So I would not allow the change of play.

tl;dr: an incomplete designation is an infraction of law. Allowing a change of designation because the declarer committed an infraction makes no sense whatsoever.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-04, 09:37, said:

"no, I will have the nine"

This statement sounds like a change of mind, with or without a pause for thought.

[jillybean]

tabaresort, on 2012-February-04, 06:40, said:

exactly right. However because she did not specify the suit Td allowed the change. But doesn't law 46 deal with rank and not suit called for and rules that the suit corresponding to the rank must be played. Providing there are not more than one? There being only one Ace in dummy means that it should be played.

Yes, I agree.

[pran]

tabaresort, on 2012-February-04, 06:30, said:

Doesn't Law 46 covers incomplete designation ie rank but not suit? In that case 46B3b says that if able then the card corresponding to the rank must be played. If there is only one then that has been designated and a change to the 9 should not be allowed.

It does indeed.
But Law 46 cannot be used for instance to rule that if I have to take a breath in the middle of my spoken call for a card from dummy then whatever I said before the breath is my (incomplete) call (subject to a Law 46 rectification), and what I said afterwards is not part of my call at all.

Before Law 46 can be used the Director must ascertain that the player had completed his call, and so long as the player does not "pause for thought" he is rather free to alter his call "in flight" while speaking.

[AlexJonson]

Declarer in narrowly defined circumstances can correct an unintended designation.

So this case is ultra simple - was this a correction of an unintended designation. The answer is TD judgement.

Many of us might prefer that declarer did not have the choice of correction, but that's not what the Laws say.

[blackshoe]

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.

[pran]

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.

The way I read OP was not that the call was incomplete but that it was incompleted.

An incomplete call is subject to Law 46 rectification, an incompleted call must be completed before being treated.

[barmar]

I think it would be uncompleted if declarer had said "Ace of uhhh...." The preposition and "uhh" (is there a word for that sound?) indicates that they were planning on finishing the designation. But if she just said "Ace" without any indication that there was more to come, I'd be inclined to rule that she finished making this incomplete designation, and 46B applies to disambiguate it.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-February-05, 00:09, said:

The way I read OP was not that the call was incomplete but that it was incompleted.

An incomplete call is subject to Law 46 rectification, an incompleted call must be completed before being treated.

Which Law, Sven?