[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-22, 05:03, said:

it is a shame that declarers who always give a complete designation are placed at a disadvantage.

Paul says SB always complies with the law by specifying both rank and suit . Hence, when SB said "King of Clubs" he made his usual legally correct designation. If, instead, he had said just "King" he would have been guilty of an illegal and incomplete designation. IMO directors should encourage correct practice by starting to penalize habitual infractions of the latter kind. When moderaters indicate that they don't like the law and wish to change it, perhaps they should delete their own posts or move them to a different forum

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2012-November-23, 21:39, said:

Paul says SB always complies with the law by specifying both rank and suit . Hence, when SB said "King of Clubs" he made his usual legally correct designation. If, instead, he had said just "King" he would have been guilty of an illegal and incomplete designation.

Go back and read the OP. Not only did declarer just say "King", he also said his original intention was to play the king of clubs.

nige1, on 2012-November-23, 21:39, said:

IMO directors should encourage correct practice by starting to penalize habitual infractions of the latter kind.

Good luck with that.

nige1, on 2012-November-23, 21:39, said:

When moderaters indicate that they don't like the law and wish to change it, perhaps they should delete their own posts or move them to a different forum

No moderator has expressed that opinion in this thread.

[Trinidad]

This thread reminds me of this happening in real life. In English the rank of the card is named first, followed by the suit (ace of spades). In many other languages the suit is named first (spade ace). This occurred in Sweden ("spade ace territory") in a try out torunament for the national team. Top players from all over the world were invited as sparring partners and the tournament language was English.

My wife and I are kibitzing a Swedish pair playing against Manoppo-Lasut. The Swedish dummy is going to the toilet and asks my wife to play the dummy on his behalf. Somewhere in trick 3 or 4, declarer says: "spade". My wife takes a small spade, RHO pulls a card and declarer says "ace!!!". I would say that there were about 2 seconds between "spade" and "ace!!!". There was no doubt in anybody's mind that declarer had intended a small spade, that his "incomplete designation had been completed" and that it took him 2 seconds to change his play. My wife feels a little silly and somewhat disgusted at the same time, looks at the Indonesians what should happen now, and they tell her: "no problem" as she changes the small spade to the ace.

In the end declarer goes down one. Then Manoppo turns to my wife and observes while winking his eye: "If he would have played a small spade, like you suggested, he would have made it."

Rik

[nige1]

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.

IMO: ♥K is legally played. But the law about correct designation is fine. Declarer should specify both rank and suit. Law-makers have created avoidable problems by complicating and relaxing the law to cope with sloppy designations. Illegal designations should be penalized. -- with exceptions made on request for dumb declarers and deaf dummies. More complex legal shenanigans would confuse players and make the game less enjoyable.