[lamford]

---

There was a bit of an incident again last night at a local club in North London. South, our friend who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, is an Arsenal supporter and was gloating to East, a Spurs supporter, at the beginning of the hand.

The auction was brief, and common throughout the room, and West led a fourth best spade. South won with the jack and played a club to the ace, and then said "king". Just as dummy was about to place the king of clubs on the table, South realised his error and added "of hearts". The interval between "king" and "of hearts" was about a second. East, who was already somewhat unhappy, said "too late", but SB was there quoting Law 46 in its entirety without pause for breath. East argued that he had to continue with the king of clubs when he said "king", under 46B3(a), but SB pointed out that this only applied to an incomplete or erroneous call, and "king of hearts" was neither of those. The director was called.

In poker a string bet of the form "call" followed after a brief interval by "and raise" is disallowed, and just the call stands. Does this apply to bridge, and how would you rule?

[campboy]

An incomplete designation is different from a designation in progress. There is a point at which the latter becomes the former, and once it does the deeming happens and it is too late to do anything about it. From your description it sounds like that is the case here.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2012-November-20, 05:39, said:

An incomplete designation is different from a designation in progress. There is a point at which the latter becomes the former, and once it does the deeming happens and it is too late to do anything about it. From your description it sounds like that is the case here.

I don't have a "designation in progress" in my law book, nor any reference to the situation. I think that the point at which it is too late is when "dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table"(45B). This had not happened in this case. Otherwise the opponents could insist on the king of clubs whenever declarer said "king of hearts" with any interval between "king" and "of hearts".

[Cyberyeti]

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. I think that the point at which it is too late is when "dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table". (45B) This had not happened in this case.

I got done for this one in Pula, partner started reaching for the king of the same suit and before he picked it up I corrected him, but I was not allowed to change it.

[campboy]

What does it mean that declarer is deemed to have called for the king of clubs, if not that the legal consequences of having called for the king of clubs apply? Once we deem that he has called for the king of clubs he can no longer call for something else. I see no reason why it matters that dummy has not yet moved the card.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-November-20, 05:58, said:

I got done for this one in Pula, partner started reaching for the king of the same suit and before he picked it up I corrected him, but I was not allowed to change it.

I wouldn't assume that any ruling in Pula was correct, much as I like the event.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2012-November-20, 06:43, said:

What does it mean that declarer is deemed to have called for the king of clubs, if not that the legal consequences of having called for the king of clubs apply? Once we deem that he has called for the king of clubs he can no longer call for something else. I see no reason why it matters that dummy has not yet moved the card.

Because that is what must be played if he just says "king". I hope you are not suggesting that if he said "king of ... um ... hearts", as players sometimes do, that would be an incomplete designation. Every designation is incomplete for some period of time. And if he had said "king of diamonds", then he would be able to choose. What we need to know is when it becomes an incomplete designation within the meaning of this Law. In poker, the principle is that it must be in the same breath to be valid.

If the laws stated that a call would be deemed incomplete if there was a pause for thought after the specification of rank, then I would agree with you. They do not.

[billw55]

IMO if the interval before the clarification ("of hearts") is long enough for dummy to react to it ("dummy was about to place the king of clubs"), then it is long enough to disallow the clarification.

[lamford]

billw55, on 2012-November-20, 07:56, said:

IMO if the interval before the clarification ("of hearts") is long enough for dummy to react to it ("dummy was about to place the king of clubs"), then it is long enough to disallow the clarification.

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.

[pran]

lamford, on 2012-November-20, 08:43, said:

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.

The important question for the Director to settle is:
"Was there a change of mind?"

From the description there was indeed (Quote from OP: South realised his error and added "of hearts) unless South most convincingly intended the King of hearts all the time. I am not convinced that he did.

Frankly I have a problem seeing any purpose of leading the ♥K from dummy, but I see a very good reason for continuing with a small club from dummy. This option is obviously spoiled at the moment he said "King".

[lamford]

pran, on 2012-November-20, 09:00, said:

The important question for the Director to settle is:
"Was there a change of mind?"

From the description there was indeed (Quote from OP: South realised his error and added "of hearts) unless South most convincingly intended the King of hearts all the time. I am not convinced that he did.

Frankly I have a problem seeing any purpose of leading the ♥K from dummy, but I see a very good reason for continuing with a small club from dummy. This option is obviously spoiled at the moment he said "King".

Not at all. 45C4(a) states:
"A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play." That clearly occurred. 45C4(b) permits the player to change an unintended designation but certainly does not oblige the player to change a legal play. It is completely irrelevant for what purpose the king of hearts is led from dummy. Declarer had to specify one or other king, and chose the one that made the contract not the one that failed. If he had remained silent, and left the call incomplete, he would also have failed as the king of clubs would have been required.

[pran]

lamford, on 2012-November-20, 09:08, said:

Not at all. 45C4(a) states:
"A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play." 45C4(b) permits the player to change an unintended designation but certainly does not oblige the player to change a legal play. It is completely irrelevant for what purpose the king of hearts is led from dummy. Declarer had to specify one or other king, and chose the one that made the contract not the one that failed. If he had remained silent, and left the call incomplete, he would also have failed as the king of clubs would have been required.

Was the call for the King of clubs (implied by L46B3{a} as a continuation from the Ace of clubs) really unintended? I believe no, for the reasons I gave.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2012-November-20, 06:44, said:

I wouldn't assume that any ruling in Pula was correct, much as I like the event.

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

[barmar]

lamford, on 2012-November-20, 08:43, said:

That is very sensible, but it is making up a rule that does not exist. I think we should just say:

The existence of much of 46B implies that some time limit should be assumed. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as an incomplete designation -- we would just sit there and wait for declarer to finish naming the card, since he could take as long as he wishes.

You consistently try to read the laws as if they're a computer program, being executed by a device with no common sense, knowledge of how the game is commonly played, or understanding of context. They're written to be applied by experienced bridge players, who are able to make inferences like this.

At the table, it's almost always obvious to everyone when declarer is changing his mind rather than just completing his designation in a situation like this.

[ArtK78]

lamford, on 2012-November-20, 05:07, said:

In poker a string bet of the form "call" followed after a brief interval by "and raise" is disallowed, and just the call stands. Does this apply to bridge, and how would you rule?

Not exactly.

In most forms of the game, the announcement "I see your bet and I raise..." is not permitted, despite what one sees in all the movies of poker being played in the Old West. This is one form of string bet, in which the problem is that the initial part of the phrase "I see your bet..." might get a reaction out of another player, and then the following "...and I raise..." might be based on the reaction.

The proper way to make a raise is to either just make it or to announce "Raise" and then the amount of the total bet or the amount of the raise. If one announces a raise but not the amount, one can then put out the entire bet in one motion or one can divide the chips into two motions, the first being the amount of the preceding bet (the call) and the second the amount of the raise. Of course, if one announces the size of one's total bet or the amount of one's raise, it doesn't matter how many motions are involved since the amount of the bet is fixed. Verbal declarations are binding (with some well-defined exceptions).

Another form of string bet is to put out some chips and then reach back to one's stack and put out more chips. Again, this is not permitted, as the initial bet may get a reaction out of another player and the bettor is not allowed to base the balance of his bet on the reaction obtained by the first part of his bet. The proper way to make a bet or raise is to either put out all of the chips bet in one motion or to announce the size of the total bet (or the amount of the raise, which necessarily includes the amount of the preceding bet) and then put out the chips.

[bluejak]

Declarer is not allowed to change his mind once a designation is made. No Law forbids him from changing his mind during a designation. So it is a matter of judgement for the TD whether he had finished his designation when declarer said "king" or not.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-November-20, 10:32, said:

You consistently try to read the laws as if they're a computer program, being executed by a device with no common sense, knowledge of how the game is commonly played, or understanding of context. They're written to be applied by experienced bridge players, who are able to make inferences like this.

People often finds faults in others that are most prominent in themselves. In another thread you wrote:

"Therefore, dummy's card is not a lead out of turn, it's a premature play. 57C2 says that a premature play by declarer from dummy is a played card. It doesn't specify that it has to be a legal play, so I would deal with that separately." and then, inconsistently, in the same thread, not having applied the qualifier "legal" before the second "play" where it was clearly (as pran tells us) intended:

"I think the Laws can be understood as if they had such qualifiers everywhere that it's necessary to allow the laws on infractions to be interpreted reasonably."

Most people would regard "incomplete designation" as one not completed within a reasonable time, whatever that time is. Otherwise anybody calling for any card from dummy would be forced to play a card of the same rank from the suit just played if legal! As bluejak states, nothing in the laws prevents declarer changing his mind before completing a designation. We had a similar one in a match against gordontd where he called for "qu"... before correcting it to "ace", when the king popped up on his left. All four players at the table, including three TDs, agreed that nothing in the laws prevented a designation being changed until it was completed. In this case, the designation had not been completed, and was completed within a second, so the change of mind is irrelevant.

And I think that the Laws should to some extent be treated like a computer program and debugged so that they work properly.

[helene_t]

I think this is very similar to "the deuce, please"
except that in the old thread it was more obvious what declarer's intentions were. Still, OP says that South "realized his error". Is it so that if it is the TD's judgement that declarer intended to play ♣K yet it isn't "incotrovertible", we should allow declarer to play ♥K?

[lamford]

helene_t, on 2012-November-21, 06:57, said:

I think this is very similar to "the deuce, please"
except that in the old thread it was more obvious what declarer's intentions were. Still, OP says that South "realized his error". Is it so that if it is the TD's judgement that declarer intended to play ♣K yet it isn't "incotrovertible", we should allow declarer to play ♥K?

No, that test only applies in the case of a played card where the intention was different (45C4b) or an incomplete or erroneous call (46B). We have:
"45C4. (a) A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play", so I find it hard to accept the arguments that the king of hearts is not a played card in this case. Was it named or otherwise designated? Yes. If we decide that it was an incomplete designation, you would be right. And FWIW, I think declarer's original intention, to play the king of clubs, was crystal clear.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2012-November-21, 07:08, said:

No, that test only applies in the case of a played card where the intention was different (45C4b) or an incomplete or erroneous call (46B). We have:
"45C4. (a) A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play", so I find it hard to accept the arguments that the king of hearts is not a played card in this case. Was it named or otherwise designated? Yes. If we decide that it was an incomplete designation, you would be right. And FWIW, I think declarer's original intention, to play the king of clubs, was crystal clear.

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?