[gordontd]

UdcaDenny, on 2015-March-31, 03:58, said:

A friend from New York says a designated card is the same as a played card and can be from declarer, dummy or opponents. He also say that you dont know english if you make a difference between designated and played. Anyway how can you interpret a law so different. Maybe it shus be rewritten ?

A card could in principle be designated by declarer, dummy or defenders, though in practice I've never known a situation where this law applied to anything but a card in dummy designated by declarer.

I think the words of the law itself make clear that designating is not the same as playing, or else (a) below would make no sense. I'm afraid it'll take more than an assertion from your friend in New York for me to believe that "designates" means "plays".

Quote

L45C4. (a) A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it
as the card he proposes to play.
(b) Until his partner has played a card a player may change an
unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. If
an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the
change in designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so
played, return it to his hand, and substitute another (see Laws 47D
and 16D1).

As to whether this law should be re-written, I've proposed exactly that to the WBF Laws Committee, but from the perspective that the phrase "Until his partner has played" is unclear and is interpreted in different ways in different jurisdictions.

[lamford]

UdcaDenny, on 2015-March-31, 03:58, said:

A friend from New York says a designated card is the same as a played card and can be from declarer, dummy or opponents. He also say that you dont know english if you make a difference between designated and played. Anyway how can you interpret a law so different. Maybe it shus be rewritten ?

I suggest that you ask him which definition of "designate" does he think is identical to "play". "Designate" is not in the definitions of the Laws (it should be, it would seem) so it gets the contextual normal meaning which is "indicate or specify". Play, in this context, is defined as "contribute a card to a trick". They are clearly different.

[Trump Echo]

As pointed out above, "mechanical error" is not in the rules. The rule (from the language) has nothing to do with whether the error was mechanical (although it's implied). The test seems to be "pause for thought", regardless of whether the error was an inadvertent error or a logic error. And if that's true, the Director would have to have been there watching the play to judge properly.

[Trinidad]

Trump Echo, on 2015-March-31, 04:33, said:

As pointed out above, "mechanical error" is not in the rules. The rule (from the language) has nothing to do with whether the error was mechanical (although it's implied). The test seems to be "pause for thought", regardless of whether the error was an inadvertent error or a logic error. And if that's true, the Director would have to have been there watching the play to judge properly.

The test is not "pause for thought", at least not for playing a card. (There is a "pause for thought" criterion for changing a call that was made inadvertantly, but that is an entirely different matter.)

The test whether a card is played is specified in Law 45

Quote

A. Play of Card from a Hand
Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing* it on the table immediately before him.

C. Compulsory Play of Card
2. Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is
(a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or
(b) maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played.

That is the entire story. There is nothing more to it, no "pause for thought" or anything like it.

I, and I presume many others, interpret this so that cards that fell out of declarer's hand have not been played. But athetre can not be any misunderstanding that a card that was detached from the hand deliberately and held in the played position has been played and can not be changed (unless it was a revoke).

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Trinidad, on 2015-March-31, 04:51, said:

I, and I presume many others, interpret this so that cards that fell out of declarer's hand have not been played.

That is covered by 48A as per my previous post.

[Vampyr]

UdcaDenny, on 2015-March-31, 03:58, said:

A friend from New York says a designated card is the same as a played card and can be from declarer, dummy or opponents. He also say that you dont know english if you make a difference between designated and played. Anyway how can you interpret a law so different. Maybe it shus be rewritten ?

A designated (named) card is a played card, but most cards from closed hands are not designated; they are simply played. The most usual reason to "designate" a card from the closed hand is if it has dropped on the floor in the process of being played.

It sounds as if if is your friend who doesn't know English.

EDIT: Sorry, LOL, missed all the replies on this page.

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-31, 06:18, said:

It sounds as if it is your friend who doesn't know English.

I was going to say that. Clear and obvious difference, both in general language and in bridge lingo.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 45A: Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing* it on the table immediately before him.

* The opening lead is first made face down unless the Regulating Authority directs otherwise.

Quote

Law 45C4{a}: A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play.

You seem to know quite a few people who are willing to expound on subjects about which they don't know much, if anything.

Clearly a card which has been "designated" has not yet been played. So clearly there is a difference between a card which has been designated and one which has been played, at least until the designated card is actually played. So your friend has no clue what he's talking about. Well, mostly. Note "except dummy" in 45A. Now

Quote

Law 45B: Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table.

The English here is also very clear: when declarer names a card in dummy, that card is played. But this is the only time a card is played by naming it. In all other cases, the cards is "proposed to be played" and "must be played", but is not yet played.

Your friend has misunderstood or misinterpreted the law. That's on him. The above, except for a minor quibble about 45B, is not controversial at all. 45B might be re-written, maybe, although I don't think it needs to be. The other two need no rewrite.