[joostb1]

---

North starts with a small club for the ace of south, who continues with a club, trumped by the declarer. The declarer plays a small spade for East´s king and says `two´. The dummy picks up the two of diamonds, south plays the three and the declarer the ace of spades. The dummy asks ´No diamonds, partner?´ and the declarer says ´I called for spades´. The TD is called and the declarer explains that he thought that the dummy had the two of spades instead of the three. He continues explaining that he was drawing the trumps and that he would never play the two of diamonds with ace, king and queen on the table, let alone at this moment.
Do you allow the withdrawal of diamond two and three and let the dummy play the three of spades? Please asume that the declarer hasn't played the ace of spades yet. This is about the question wether this is an unintended designation and the application of law 45C4b.

[ahydra]

I don't think L45C4b is relevant here. The designation "two" was not unintended.

We should be looking at 46B3 and possibly 45D. (We might also comment on declarer's poor technique: he should cash the Ace first to pick up Jxxx in North )

46B3 says that declarer played the D2. Whilst there is the usual caveat of "declarer's intention [being] incontrovertible", I think declarer was careless here. He should be able to tell the difference between a 2 and a 3, and should call for cards using the proper form "two of spades [please]" (after which dummy says "I ain't got that one, mate!"). So I wouldn't allow the change to the S2.

ahydra

[c_corgi]

It is clear that declarer's intended designation was dummy's lowest spade, so the change is allowed. I don't see why declarers carelessness should forfeit this, although maybe a warning for violation of 46A is in order.

[Phil]

ahydra, on 2012-August-09, 08:59, said:

(We might also comment on declarer's poor technique: he should cash the Ace first to pick up Jxxx in North )

ahydra

Maybe we wanted to pick up J9xx in South instead?

[iviehoff]

c_corgi, on 2012-August-09, 09:12, said:

It is clear that declarer's intended designation was dummy's lowest spade, so the change is allowed.

Unfortunately you have made the common confusion between the colloquial interpretation of the words "intended" and "unintended" and the legal definition of "unintended designation". It is just like the situation where you quite clearly "intend" to show 2 Aces in response to Blackwood, but by miscalculation you bid 5D instead of 5H. That was not a mispull, it was a miscalculation. It was precisely the bid you intended to make at the time you made it. The fact taht it didn't achieve your deeper intention of communicating "2 Aces" was due to miscalculation, not unintended designation. I hope it is clear to you that the law does not let you change it when you realise you have miscalculated, because this is just the same situation here.

There is no doubt that when declarer uttered the word "two", that is the word he intended to utter. Thus, legally, it was not an unintended designation. Indeed it was precisely the designation he intended to make. What went wrong was his calculation of what that (incomplete) designation would achieve. The fact that it did not achieve that outcome was because he made a miscalculation about what (incomplete) designation would achieve that outcome, based upon his faulty observation of which spots were on table. Such miscalculations may not be repaired under the unintended designation law.

Further, his designation was incomplete. But it was entirely his intention to make such an incomplete designation and live with the consequences of it. So he cannot cancel the designation it on the grounds he hadn't completed it yet, and start again, as he had never intended to say any more, it was completed as far as he was concerned. If he had not thought to calculate what incomplete designations might achieve the outcome he hoped for, and made that incomplete designation, he would not have been at risk of miscalculating.

And if on another occasion he says "low trump", and dummy picks up the 2 from where it was mis-sorted above the 7, and declarer says "actually I wanted the one at the bottom, the 7, obviously I didn't want to under-ruff", I won't let him get away with that change either.

[ahydra]

Phil, on 2012-August-09, 09:34, said:

Maybe we wanted to pick up J9xx in South instead?

Heh, for some reason I discounted that because I thought S could just cover the 10 with the J. But it seems the 8 is a very important card

Still, North rates to have the long spades after the overcall, I would have thought.

Back on topic: If a defender pulls the wrong card out they can't change it once their partner could have seen the face of the card. If declarer calls for Q when taking an AQ finesse having failed to spot LHO's played King, he can't change it. These examples to me suggest that declarer shouldn't be allowed a change having misread a 3 as a 2, further compounded by him not using the correct form to call the cards which would have avoided the problem.

Having said that - can someone give an example of when declarer makes a genuine inadvertent designation?

ahydra

[c_corgi]

iviehoff, on 2012-August-09, 10:33, said:

Unfortunately you have made the common confusion between the colloquial interpretation of the words "intended" and "unintended" and the legal definition of "unintended designation"...

Is there a formal definition of "unintended designation"? I would think that L46 suggests that when a designation is incomplete or eroneous and that declarers intent can be gaged then declarers intent wins. Just because he intended to say "two" doesn't mean that any two you can find in dummy is his intent. This situation is not analagous to the Blackwood response IMO because the intent referred to is to play a particular bidding card (5D) or playing card (dummy's lowest spade) rather than to express the systemic meaning behind it.

[iviehoff]

c_corgi, on 2012-August-09, 11:32, said:

Is there a formal definition of "unintended designation"? I would think that L46 suggests that when a designation is incomplete or eroneous and that declarers intent can be gaged then declarers intent wins.

But it is L45C4b which refers to "unintended designation". Certainly there is a definition of "unintended" in the definitions section at the start, which forms part of the laws. So the card certainly cannot be changed under 45C4b. But 46B, on the interpretation of incomplete designations, perhaps gives him a way to escape the logic of that.

[c_corgi]

iviehoff, on 2012-August-09, 12:06, said:

But it is L45C4b which refers to "unintended designation". Certainly there is a definition of "unintended" in the definitions section at the start, which forms part of the laws. So the card certainly cannot be changed under 45C4b. But 46B, on the interpretation of incomplete designations, perhaps gives him a way to escape the logic of that.

That definititon of "unintended" seems quite consistent with this situation being an "unintended designation" for the purposes of 45C4b.

[aguahombre]

c_corgi, on 2012-August-09, 12:18, said:

That definititon of "unintended" seems quite consistent with this situation being an "unintended designation" for the purposes of 45C4b.

That seems like an accurate summation of exactly the opposite of what Iviehoff and Ahydra have posted. What they posted, and their reasoning make sense.

[ahydra]

I can see what c_corgi is getting at. Try as I might, I haven't yet been able to think of an example where we could rule "unintended designation" (L45C4b). I recall the example given for "intention incontrovertible" 46B where declarer is running a suit from the top, calls "top club", "top club", "club" and shouldn't be made to play a small one - but I don't think that is what the lawmakers had in mind by "unintended designation".

Perhaps a player speaking in a foreign language and accidentally saying the wrong number/suit?

ahydra

[Zelandakh]

ahydra, on 2012-August-10, 04:50, said:

Perhaps a player speaking in a foreign language and accidentally saying the wrong number/suit?

I have done this a number of times, mixing up Coeur (heart) with Karo (diamond). Luckily it has not yet caused a problem as either Dummy did not have any of the named suit or I was able to immediately correct it.

[c_corgi]

aguahombre, on 2012-August-09, 18:45, said:

That seems like an accurate summation of exactly the opposite of what Iviehoff and Ahydra have posted. What they posted, and their reasoning make sense.

Then I shall try to be more explicit

Using Ahydra's example of AQ over the king. With AQ in declarers hand and the K on his right, LHO leads the suit and RHO plays the king. My understanding is that there is a distinction between:

1. Declarer intends to play the Ace, but looks down and finds the Queen on the table instead
2. Declarer intends to win the trick as cheaply as possible, but miscalculates, momentarily thinking that the Queen will have the desired effect.

I think in case 1 he is allowed to change the card and in case 2 he is not.

In the OP case declarer's intent was to designate dummy's lowest spade. He did not momentarily think that designating "any two you can find in dummy" would have his desired effect of leading a low trump from dummy. His designation was unintended and he is therefore entitled to change his card.

[iviehoff]

c_corgi, on 2012-August-10, 05:15, said:

He did not momentarily think that designating "any two you can find in dummy" would have his desired effect of leading a low trump from dummy.

This may be the nub of our disagreement. I agree he did not do exactly what you said he didn't do, but I believe he did do something exceedingly similar to that. What he did was think to himself was "Having regard to the rules on incomplete designation, and the spots on the table, the designation "two" will achieve my objective of playing a small trump." But in that he miscalculated, founded upon his mistaken observation of what the small spot in trumps is.

As you quite correctly point out in the case of leading to AQ in dummy, and intending to play the cheapest card that cover's LHO's card, if he says Q when he fails to spot in time that LHO played the K, then he can't change it. The term "intention" here is quite clearly related to the designation - ie verbal form - one intended to make, not the deeper intention of the playing strategy one intended to adopt. If your brain thinks "Ace" but your lips involuntarily produce "Queen" (note the use of the word involuntary in the definition of "unintended") you can in principle change it - though you may have difficulty persuading a director that is what happened. But if your brain thinks "cheapest card to win it", but then your brain miscalculates (having failed to observe the K played) that what you need to do to achieve that is say "queen", and you say "queeen" knowing that you were saying "queen", then, as you acknowledge, queen it must be, a fact made prominent by the occurrence of just that case in the deciding board of a Bermuda Bowl one year.

I'm surprised you can't see that these two cases are similar (I'm not saying they are exactly the same). They both involve a miscalculation of what you must say to achieve your deeper strategy, both miscalculations based upon failing properly to observe the identity a card placed upon the table. Miscalculations may not be corrected. Intention as referred to in the laws relates to the designation - ie verbal form or other method of designation - you intended to make, not your deeper bridge strategy.

[Lanor Fow]

The difficulty I have in seeing the two as similiar is that whilst declarer wanted (whatever he said) to play the queen of spades in the classic queen under king. Declarer never wanted to play the 2 of diamonds (regardless of what he said). That he wanted to play a card that doesn't exist makes this interesting, but not a direct corollary of the AQ situation in my opinion (for the record I'm not sure what I would rule).

[barmar]

My impression is that the intent of "unintended designation" is for the case where a player says something like "I could have sworn I said 'three'" or "I meant to say 'spade', but somehow 'heart' came out of my mouth." The point is that it's meant to refer to a difference between what you intended to say and what you actually said -- it should be the verbal equivalent of a mechanical error. A mistake in seeing dummy's cards doesn't fit this.

This particular situation is very unfortunate. Declarer could have used another incomplete designation, "spade", and not have any problem. He thought he was doing better by using the rank, but in this case it bit him.

BTW, would anyone be upset if 46B3b went away -- you could only designate a rank without a suit when continuing the suit.

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-August-10, 09:21, said:

My impression is that the intent of "unintended designation" is for the case where a player says something like "I could have sworn I said 'three'" or "I meant to say 'spade', but somehow 'heart' came out of my mouth." The point is that it's meant to refer to a difference between what you intended to say and what you actually said -- it should be the verbal equivalent of a mechanical error. A mistake in seeing dummy's cards doesn't fit this.

This particular situation is very unfortunate. Declarer could have used another incomplete designation, "spade", and not have any problem. He thought he was doing better by using the rank, but in this case it bit him.

BTW, would anyone be upset if 46B3b went away -- you could only designate a rank without a suit when continuing the suit.

He could also have said "low" or "small" and there would not have been any problem ( Law 46B3{a} ).

[kevperk]

So, if declarer had said "2 of spades" we would have the 3 of spades led, but because he said "2" and thought spades, we don't. Or, if there had not been another 2 in dummy, we would also have the 3 of spades led. I do not believe I would rule this way.

[pran]

kevperk, on 2012-August-14, 10:00, said:

So, if declarer had said "2 of spades" we would have the 3 of spades led, but because he said "2" and thought spades, we don't. Or, if there had not been another 2 in dummy, we would also have the 3 of spades led. I do not believe I would rule this way.

If Declarer had said "2 of spades" then no card had been led because Dummy has no 2 of spades.
If there hadn't been any 2 in Dummy then no card had been played when Declarer just said "two".
In either case he would have been requested to clarify his call for a card (L46B4)

If there are more than one 2 in dummy and Declarer just said "two" then he would have been requested to specify which of the available "2"s he wanted to play (L46B3{b})

[c_corgi]

pran, on 2012-August-14, 15:33, said:

If Declarer had said "2 of spades" then no card had been led because Dummy has no 2 of spades.
If there hadn't been any 2 in Dummy then no card had been played when Declarer just said "two".
In either case he would have been requested to clarify his call for a card (L46B4)

If there are more than one 2 in dummy and Declarer just said "two" then he would have been requested to specify which of the available "2"s he wanted to play (L46B3{b})

L46B1-5 do not apply when "declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible", which it surely is here. His objective was to designate dummy's lowest spade, but he actually called for "two" intending the 2 of spades. Since the 2 of spades is not in dummy, L46B4 would apply, so declarer could then designate any card of his choosing from dummy without being restricted to the lowest spade. Whichever laws are applied, I don't see how the 2 of diamonds can possibly be played.