[BLML] Can a complete designation become incomplete?
rfrick at rfrick.info
Sun Feb 17 22:37:47 CET 2013
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:52:24 -0500, Ed Reppert <blackshoe at mac.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Robert Frick <rfrick at rfrick.info> wrote:
>> That is not a practical policy. Do you mean to claim that when someone
>> says three, but does not say the suit, that is an incomplete designation
>> and they can change it?
> I say that "three" is an incomplete designation (see Law 46A). Whether
> the player can change the designation depends on what else is going on.
>> I think you would be out on a limb by yourself, at least in ACBL-land
>> Belgium. From the ACBLLC:
>> Declarer leads toward the A–Q in dummy, intending to
>> finesse. He calls “Queen” without looking to see the card
>> that LHO has played, the King. He wants to change to the
>> ace. No matter how fast (without pause for thought) the
>> change is made — NOT INADVERTENT. When declarer
>> said “Queen” he meant the Queen.
> This is a completely different situation than the "three" one.
Why? You are agreeing that "queen" is a complete designation and arguing
that "three" isn't?
Why don't you just say what the difference is between these situations, if
there is one?
>> At the table, the intonation (pitch) described to me was of a complete
>> thought ending in three.
> Yeah, well, nobody described it that way to *me*.
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
Wisdom is the beginning of seeing.
More information about the Blml