[nige1]

IMO, a designation like "heart" or "king" should normally be treated as incomplete. If it is ambiguous, It should be illegal for dummy to play a card until declarer clarifies. If dummy prematurely plays a card, it should be treated as suggesting a line of play. If the law agreed and directors routinely ruled this way, the game might slow down to begin with. Very quickly, however, it would be faster and less rancorous. A game is its rules and simpler is better -- provided the game's essential nature and enjoyment are preserved.

[ahydra]

There's something to be said for "heart" to be treated as incomplete (unless dummy has a singleton heart or a bunch of hearts which are all equal). But most of the time if declarer wants a top heart, he'll ask for a top heart, so the current Law that suggests "no rank = small" is sensible.

I don't agree with "king" being incomplete though - it could only ever mean the king of the suit led, since dummy can't legally play a card from another suit.

In the case where dummy's on lead or doesn't have a card in the suit led, this is Law 46B3, which currently interprets declarer's call of "king" as follows:

* a) if dummy's on lead and there's a king in the suit in which dummy won the previous trick, he means that king
* b) if dummy's not on lead and there's only one king in dummy, he means that king
* otherwise the call is incomplete.

That seems like common sense to me (indeed I don't understand why b) doesn't apply even when dummy's on lead). Perhaps one could replace Law 46B3a with "if dummy's on lead and there's more than one king in dummy, the call is incomplete".

To be honest, dummy should be waiting for a "please" or a pause of at least 1 second before pulling the card off the table - this is by far the best way to avoid "heart...... ace" or "king...... of spades".

ahydra

[bluejak]

I think the current method works well so needs no change.

[barmar]

46b3a is most commonly used in the case where declarer is running a suit in dummy, and there's little chance for confusion.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2012-February-05, 19:07, said:

I think the current method works well so needs no change.

Indeed it could probably do with some reinforcement so that standard interpretations are actually written into the law. At the moment the following two points are matters of commentary:
- a designation is not made until the speaker has had reasonable opportunity to complete communicating all things relevant to the designation he intends to communicate at that point
- until the speaker has completed his designation, he can cancel whatever he has communicated so far and start again

[tabaresort]

The problem can arise if declarer (South) winning in dummy with say a spade. Now if declarer says King it must designate the K♣. (Law 46B3b) However if declarer does not complete his call and then asks for the 6 of clubs is this a " change of mind"? and not allowed. Or is it "Inadvertent"? in which case the change would be allowed.
IMO the term "Inadvertent" should be better defined.

---

[axman]

tabaresort, on 2012-February-17, 12:45, said:

The problem can arise if declarer (South) winning in dummy with say a spade. Now if declarer says King it must designate the K♣. (Law 46B3b) However if declarer does not complete his call and then asks for the 6 of clubs is this a " change of mind"? and not allowed. Or is it "Inadvertent"? in which case the change would be allowed.
IMO the term "Inadvertent" should be better defined.

---

imo, if a player strives to not change his action when it was the intended one [as in not inadvertent] he more likely will be correcting only inadvertent actions. Not, that when he claims to correct it necessarily will would be so- but that it would be in the right direction. My point being that requiring TDs to mind read to rule upon something so nebulous and fleeting as inadvertency, is much worse than treading a slippery slope with little upside, it's running full speed in a bobsled; and the only person qualified to read Nancy's read mind is Nancy.

The way to use inadvertency is advice to players to use as an ethics litmus test rather than something to rule upon by TDs.

[bluejak]

The difficulties in ruling inadvertency are vastly over-rated. Few people deliberately lie when asked a direct question and it is usually easy to judge. Whether there should be changes allowed at all is interesting. I think not in theory but feel that the change to that would be too great to implement and thus impractical. Assuming we are to continue to allow changes for inadvertent actions in certain cases there is no difficulty for TDs.