[blackshoe]

I played yesterday with a partner who has the habit. Unfortunately, any attempt on my part to get her to change would just confuse her, and she's confused enough already.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-08, 13:22, said:

While I agree regarding rulings, IMO the practice is odious and should be stamped out.

To my mind "play" means "play anything". All that need be done is convince those responsible for writing ACBL regulations to agree with this.

[UdcaDenny]

pran, on 2015-April-08, 02:17, said:

It is worth observing that the subsections of Law 45C "Compulsory Play of Card" begins with:
1: A defender’s card
2: Declarer must play a card from his hand if
3: A card in the dummy
4a: A card must be played if
4b: Until his partner has played a card a player may
5: A penalty card, major or minor,

If Law 45C4b onbly applies to iintended Cards from dummy then why does not Law 45C4a (like Law 45C3) begins with "A card in Dummy" and Law 45C4b with "Until Declarer has played a card"?

WBFLC may be accused of being sloppy (I don't agree), but the distinctions in Law 45C are clear and significant: Law 45C4 (both a and b) applies to cards from any of the four players at the table. (That Law 45C4 is almost never relevant other than when Declarer designates a card from Dummy doesn't change this.)

So the law could be applied to a card from any hand but I thought designated means a named card intended to be played and that it differs from a played card already put on the table. Our TD called the played Ace of S a designated card and allowed my partner to pick it up and replace it with his 10.

[gordontd]

UdcaDenny, on 2015-April-09, 00:13, said:

So the law could be applied to a card from any hand but I thought designated means a named card intended to be played and that it differs from a played card already put on the table.

Both of those things are correct. In principle declarer or a defender could designate a card rather than playing it; in practice it almost never happens.

UdcaDenny, on 2015-April-09, 00:13, said:

Our TD called the played Ace of S a designated card and allowed my partner to pick it up and replace it with his 10.

As has been pointed out repeatedly here, he's wrong.

[Trinidad]

UdcaDenny, on 2015-April-09, 00:13, said:

So the law could be applied to a card from any hand but I thought designated means a named card intended to be played and that it differs from a played card already put on the table. Our TD called the played Ace of S a designated card and allowed my partner to pick it up and replace it with his 10.

Basically, the situation is very simple:
A played card is a played card and cannot be changed. A card has been played when it is has been taken from the hand and put on or near the table. Playing a card is the physical action of moving the piece of plastic coated paper in the playing position.

A player can designate a card: He can announce that he is going to play a card. That card has not been played yet. In practice, designations happen for every card that is played from dummy, but other players can also designate cards. A designated card has not been played yet and can be changed, but only if the designation was unintended. If the player who designated the card intended to play it when he designated it, he cannot change his mind anymore. However, if he misspoke, he is allowed to correct it.

This makes it clear that in your situation we were not dealing with designated cards, but with played cards.

Having said all that, I would try to live by: "It is good to be right but nice to be wise.". Just let it be and enjoy the part of the bridge that is bridge.

Rik

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-09, 00:12, said:

To my mind "play" means "play anything". All that need be done is convince those responsible for writing ACBL regulations to agree with this.

IMO nothing "needs to be done" because there isn't a problem. Everyone here understands, and I have never seen a single person dispute the designation of "play". About the worst that happens is somebody uses it when dummy has no cards in the suit; in which case "play anything" is the correct interpretation, and law 46B5 applies.

I understand that this practice is not common across the pond. So, if I went over there and played, I would not do it; this seems like a reasonable attitude to me.

[Vampyr]

The people (including some who have posted in this thread) who find the practice super annoying would disagree with you as to whether there is a problem.

It seems that if there is a really annoying thing that is also illegal, it should be possible to get it changed. In theory anyway.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-09, 07:10, said:

The people (including some who have posted in this thread) who find the practice super annoying would disagree with you as to whether there is a problem.

It seems that if there is a really annoying thing that is also illegal, it should be possible to get it changed. In theory anyway.

Maybe the people who find it super annoying need to learn some perspective. This is a minor transgression, and IMHO they're making a mountain out of a molehill. I don't think I do it myself, although I wouldn't be surprised if I do it without even noticing; there are enough people I play against who do it that I might have unconsciously picked up the habit.

Just wondering, what's your stance on people cracking their knuckles? I suspect a correlation.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2015-April-09, 09:29, said:

Just wondering, what's your stance on people cracking their knuckles? I suspect a correlation.

To be honest, I think that if someone incessantly cracked their knuckles during a hand, they would be deliberately trying to annoy.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2015-April-09, 09:29, said:

Maybe the people who find it super annoying need to learn some perspective.

And, the people who do it or say it is just fine might learn some perspective from UdcaDenny's post #51 where the link has rulings involving things that can go wrong when the word "play" is used.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-09, 00:12, said:

To my mind "play" means "play anything". All that need be done is convince those responsible for writing ACBL regulations to agree with this.

Interesting, since if Declarer abdicates the choice of card to be played, Dummy does not get to choose one ---you do.

Declarer leads the King from hand. Dummy has A52. Declarer says, "play". As defender, have you tried saying, "O.K., I choose the Ace." ??

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-09, 12:45, said:

Interesting, since if Declarer abdicates the choice of card to be played, Dummy does not get to choose one ---you do.

Declarer leads the King from hand. Dummy has A52. Declarer says, "play". As defender, have you tried saying, "O.K., I choose the Ace." ??

Quite correct, except that

Law 46B said:

In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):
[...]

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2015-April-09, 15:22, said:

Quite correct, except that

Yes, Sven. I was not suggesting Stef would be successful in doing that; but, it would make an impression upon Declarer

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-09, 12:45, said:

Interesting, since if Declarer abdicates the choice of card to be played, Dummy does not get to choose one ---you do.

Declarer leads the King from hand. Dummy has A52. Declarer says, "play". As defender, have you tried saying, "O.K., I choose the Ace." ??

No, it is not a problem I normally have to deal with.