I think I got this ruling wrong
Dave
king. Declarer's RHO inadvertantly played the Q (holding AQ),
instantantly asking whether she could change it. The CQ was held in a
position where her partner could see it. (I was dummy and playing
director).
L47C (Retraction of card played) refers to L45C4(b) which allows a
player to change an 'unintended designation' in these circumstances,
so I allowed the change.
The word 'designation' is not defined among the DEFINITIONs at the
start of the Laws. However, L45C4(a) suggests that it involves naming,
or otherwise. and L45C1 suggests that the card must be played.
However, I cannot see what the 'otherwise' constitutes unless it means
facing the card.
Certainly, I do not think I should have to hunt through the Laws to
find a definition.
Any comments out there ?
Dave Flower
Adam Beneschan
The word doesn't appear to be defined in the Laws, so I think you just
rely on the English definition. I tried this, though, and there are
several definitions, and I'm not sure which one applies. Also,
"designate" and its inflections are used in a number of different
contexts in the Laws, so putting this word in the Definitions would
have to be done carefully.
My clue comes from the organization of 45C. It appears that sections
1 and 2 have to do with cards that are physically pulled out of the
closed hands and shown, 3 has to do with touching dummy's cards, and 4
is for cards that are "designated". If "designated" were intended to
refer to cards whose faces are shown, it would be redundant with (and
probably contradict) #1 and #2, so I think that section only refers to
cards being named, or referred to in some other way but without any
physical interaction with the card itself; and 45C4(b) is part of
section 4, so I think the rule about "inadvertent" designations refers
*only* to cards being named or otherwise indicated, *not* to cards
whose face is shown.
So I conclude that cards that are "played" as defined by 45C1 and 2
cannot be retracted even if "inadvertent". (Note that sections 1 and
2 both use the word "held", so they don't apply to dropped cards.)
I'm not a director, however.
I haven't checked any WBFLC minutes to see if they discuss this.
Also, if a player has a physical condition which would make it
difficult to return the card to her hand (or flip it face down, maybe)
after first pulling it out, there may be other Laws that allow the
Director to make an exception.
-- Adam
Andrew
"Designate" makes sense in reference to cards played from dummy.
Declarers can designate a card to be played by pointing or calling
"low" (or sometimes declarer says "eight" and dummy hears "ace") and
dummy sometimes attempts to play a card not intended by declarer. IMO,
a defender plays a card by facing it, not by designating a card to be
played.
Andrew
Adam Beneschan
I think a defender or declarer *could* say the name of a card,
however, and the rules say that if the player does so, then that card
is played. It's rare, but I think I've seen it happen when somehow a
player is having problems getting their fingers to work right, or they
were in the middle of putting down their coffee cup or retrieving
something from their purse or something like that, and they go ahead
and say the name of the card first in order to move the game along.
Don't know what the rules say should happen if a player names a card
they don't have, but if they perchance do it on a day when I bring my
six-shooter, I know what *will* happen... :)
-- Adam
Stu G
This is a reasonably common situation, and the ruling is clear in this
case.
The pertinent law is 45C1: A defender's card held so that it is
possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current
trick.
The use in Law 45C4a refers to a player who "names or otherwise
designates ... a card he proposes to play". This usually refers to
declarer calling a card from dummy, but as Adam points out, it does
apply to all players. While designate might not be defined in the
Laws, it does have it's dictionary meaning - to indicate, presumably
in this context by means other than verbally naming. That might mean
pointing to a card, for example.
In your case, the defender did not name or designate a card he
'proposed to play'. He deliberately took it from his hand and held it
so his partner could have seen it. It is a played card.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
Robin Barker
> Don't know what the rules say should happen if a player names a card
> they don't have, but if they perchance do it on a day when I bring my
> six-shooter, I know what *will* happen... :)
Law 73D2 should do:
A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark
or gesture, ...
In combination with Law 73F to adjust the score if an opponent is
mislead.
As with many other examples of coffee housing and deliberate
deception,
opponent can get very upset and stronger penalties are tempting.
Robin
Andrew
Hoss! Little Joe! :)
A.
OldPalooka
Right, the "men's room" maneuver worked along those lines. Partner
would lead [say] the spade ace, and the perp wanted a switch holding
98. So he would drop the 8 on the floor and say "sorry, I am playing
a low spade". For that you can fire your six-handled pearl shooter
Adam.
Andrew
Bill don't you worry that you will be blackballed for revealing so
many professional secrets??? ;-)
Andrew
Frances
It's a bit obscure, but I have a disabled friend who cannot hold the
cards himself. He uses a card holder and a helper, and tells the
helper which card to play to each trick.
Dave
Looking at this again, I see that there is a problem in the wording of
the Laws.
L47C is titled 'To Change an Inadvertent Designation', and then states
'A played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without
further rectification after a change of designation permitted by Law
45C4(b)'.
Now L45C4(b) refers to an 'unintended designation'.
L45C4(a) states '...designates it as the card he proposes to play';
this clearly indicates that 'designation' does not imply 'play'.
The only interpretation that is self consistent is to assume that :
45C1 (A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to
see its face must be played to the current trick) means that the card
is played to the current trick, but not necessarily that it remains
part of the current trick.
Or perhaps L47C should start 'A designated card...'
Dave Flower
Andrew
A designation is a statement or gesture that signifies a card to be
played. A designation is a sign that indicates the act of playing, not
the act itself. Playing to a trick is the physical act of
intentionally exposing a card to the view of other players (or in the
case of dummy of selecting a card from dummy and placing it in the
playing area).
The designation rules are intended to apply to situations where two
people are involved in the play, one designating a card and the other
physically playing it.
In the case of a defender playing his own cards, when he deliberately
exposes a card he plays it regardless of whether it is or is not the
card he intended to play. There was no designation and
miscommunication concerning the intent of his designation and hence
designation laws do not apply.
Andrew
David Stevenson
Where a word is not defined the assumption is that normal English
usage applies. "Designation" is naming something, so it seems obvious
that a play of a card is not a designation. The CQ was played and may
not be unplayed.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
David Stevenson
Got out of bed the wrong side?
I would expect a player who designates a card he does not have has
just made a mistake, not tried to coffee-house anyone.
After all an EBU National TD produced the strange sequence
P P 3D P
3H
tonight, and his explanation was that his red suit holdings of
H KQxxx
D A
had become
H AKQxxx
D -
by the second round! No doubt if he was designating his red ace he
would have said "Diamond ace".
==============================================================
Frances wrote
>It's a bit obscure, but I have a disabled friend who cannot hold the
>cards himself. He uses a card holder and a helper, and tells the
>helper which card to play to each trick.
I am pleased to discover this in real life, since this is the example
I have often used.
==============================================================
Dave wrote
>Looking at this again, I see that there is a problem in the wording of
>the Laws.
>
>L47C is titled 'To Change an Inadvertent Designation', and then states
>'A played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without
>further rectification after a change of designation permitted by Law
>45C4(b)'.
Fine - a designation.
>Now L45C4(b) refers to an 'unintended designation'.
Ok - still a designation.
>L45C4(a) states '...designates it as the card he proposes to play';
>this clearly indicates that 'designation' does not imply 'play'.
Ok - still a designation. Of course designation does not mean play:
it means name.
>The only interpretation that is self consistent is to assume that :
>45C1 (A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to
>see its face must be played to the current trick) means that the card
>is played to the current trick, but not necessarily that it remains
>part of the current trick.
Now this does not make sense. If it is held so partner can see it
then it must be played, but it is not designated, and has nothing to do
with the Laws above which are to do with designated cards.
>Or perhaps L47C should start 'A designated card...'
Of course not, because that is not what it means. A card that is
designated, and thus must be played, may .....
A card that is played without being designated does not fall under
this Law.