[jules101]

I was reading Law 45, and I am struggling to understand exactly what 45 C 4 (b) actually means.

I've pasted all of Law 45 C below, and highlighted the phrase I'm asking about in BOLD.

(I thought that "a played card" was "a played card". But I'm now puzzled!)

Explanation welcome, together with a couple of examples....

Many thanks in anticipation!


LAW 45 - CARD PLAYED

C. Compulsory Play of Card

1. A defender’s card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E).

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.

3. A card in the dummy must be played if it has been deliberately touched by declarer except for the purpose either of arranging dummy’s cards, or of reaching a card above or below the card or cards touched.

4. (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).

5. A penalty card, major or minor, may have to be played (see Law 50).

[ahydra]

This discussion has come up before - a "designation" (someone explicitly naming the card they're going to play) is quite unusual in card play, so this rule is very rarely invoked. One example may be a disabled person who can't actually play the cards, so has a helper; said player is not dummy, and he says to his helper "play the ace of hearts, erm, I mean diamonds". If the TD believes the "ace of hearts" was an unintended designation he should allow the ♦A to be played instead.

ahydra

[jules101]

Ah thanks. I missed earlier discussion.

That makes perfect sense.

[gordontd]

 ahydra, on 2016-February-08, 10:28, said:

This discussion has come up before - a "designation" (someone explicitly naming the card they're going to play) is quite unusual in card play, so this rule is very rarely invoked.

It's routine in the case of declarer playing from dummy and that's when this law usually arises.

[WellSpyder]

 gordontd, on 2016-February-08, 12:07, said:

It's routine in the case of declarer playing from dummy and that's when this law usually arises.

How do you apply "until his partner plays a card" to this case?

(While playing a hand a couple of days ago I managed to produce an, I hope, rare example of a mis-designation. Playing in 3N, LHO led a ♦, and I held up my ace until the third round, discarding a ♣ from dummy on the third round. Now as I was about to lead ♠Q from my hand to the next trick, I noticed that dummy had one fewer ♠ than I expected. Anyway, there didn't seem to be much that I could do about it, and I made one fewer tricks than I would have done if I had discarded a ♣.... At the end of the hand, when I casually mentioned that I meant to discard a ♣, oppo and partner were clear that I had asked for a spade, though one opponent did mention that I was looking at the clubs when I said it. Assuming that there isn't a problem with deciding that my designation was unintended - which may not have been entirely obvious from the hand, but might have been helped by the fact that I had no real further information to go on at the time that I released my mistake than I had at the time of the discard - at what time does it become too late to sort it out? Is it when I played ♦A from hand?)

[gordontd]

 WellSpyder, on 2016-February-09, 06:04, said:

How do you apply "until his partner plays a card" to this case?

In England we think it means until declarer has played from hand and I believe the next Law Book will clarify that, but there are some jurisdictions that interpret it as meaning until dummy has put the card in the played position.

[pran]

 WellSpyder, on 2016-February-09, 06:04, said:

How do you apply "until his partner plays a card" to this case?

 gordontd, on 2016-February-09, 07:05, said:

In England we think it means until declarer has played from hand and I believe the next Law Book will clarify that, but there are some jurisdictions that interpret it as meaning until dummy has put the card in the played position.

Quite so.
For the purpose of this law when Declarer has designated a particular card to be played from Dummy:

"The player" (playing a card) is the Dummy, and "His partner" is the Declarer.

[Zelandakh]

This is also a law I need sometimes playing in Germany as I occasionally confuse Coeur (♥) with Karo (♦). Luckily, the times I have done it so far I have noticed immediately and been able to correct ("in the same breath") but it will no doubt happen one day that this causes an issue, either for myself (by not noticing) or the opponents (because they do not think a correction should be allowed).

[Trinidad]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-February-09, 07:40, said:

This is also a law I need sometimes playing in Germany as I occasionally confuse Coeur (♥) with Karo (♦). Luckily, the times I have done it so far I have noticed immediately and been able to correct ("in the same breath") but it will no doubt happen one day that this causes an issue, either for myself (by not noticing) or the opponents (because they do not think a correction should be allowed).

My Finnish wife had the same problem when we were living in Sweden: "Ruter" is Swedish for ♦, while "Risti" is Finnish for ♣. They were easily mixed up. After a while the local TDs knew about the "minor problem" and she was always allowed to correct. I guess it took her about a year to get rid of the problem.

Rik

[blackshoe]

"I do not think that should be allowed" should never be an issue. Just call the TD.

[RMB1]

 gordontd, on 2016-February-09, 07:05, said:

In England we think it means until declarer has played from hand and I believe the next Law Book will clarify that, but there are some jurisdictions that interpret it as meaning until dummy has put the card in the played position.

See EBU White Book 8.45.3:

Quote

The usual case of the application of Law 45C4 (b) is when a card is named to be played from dummy: in this case ‘until partner has played’ is confusing. The EBU interpretation of this law is that the time limit to change a designation of a card played by dummy is until declarer plays a card (from his hand) to the trick, and if dummy plays third or fourth to the trick it is until declarer quits the trick.

[hrothgar]

 WellSpyder, on 2016-February-09, 06:04, said:

How do you apply "until his partner plays a card" to this case?

It depends on whether or not you say "Oh shiite!"

[Pig Trader]

 jules101, on 2016-February-08, 10:18, said:

.... an unintended designation ....

Jules, It is also worth considering the word "unintended" while we are here. A designation is not "unintended" if, at the time of uttering the designated card, it was the card that at that instant of time you intended to designate. The classic example is when leading towards an AQ in dummy and you intend to finesse so you call for the Queen but then you suddenly realise that LHO has played the King. So now you want to play the Ace instead. So you say "Queen. No! The Ace!" but because the Queen was the card you intended to play at the time you said "Queen", the card cannot be changed, no matter how quickly afterwards you said "No! The Ace!". In such a case it is Law 45C4(a) that applies.

[arepo24]

 jules101, on 2016-February-08, 10:18, said:

I was reading Law 45, and I am struggling to understand exactly what 45 C 4 (b) actually means.

I've pasted all of Law 45 C below, and highlighted the phrase I'm asking about in BOLD.

(I thought that "a played card" was "a played card". But I'm now puzzled!)

Explanation welcome, together with a couple of examples....

Many thanks in anticipation!


LAW 45 - CARD PLAYED

C. Compulsory Play of Card

1. A defender’s card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E).

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.

3. A card in the dummy must be played if it has been deliberately touched by declarer except for the purpose either of arranging dummy’s cards, or of reaching a card above or below the card or cards touched.

4. (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).

5. A penalty card, major or minor, may have to be played (see Law 50).

Dummy held AQ8 of hearts.
My partner played a small H from her hand. Op followed with small heart.
Partner instructed dummy (me) by saying "Play!" So dummy started for the 8 when the declarer immediately said, "no, wait! Play the ace!" While she was saying that the op quickly slapped down her H9 and took the trick. The dummy(me)actually had the 8 in hand but never actually placed it down on the table before the op played her 9. Everything thing was done very quickly. What is the ruling and should the defender have called the Director?

[barmar]

That's the old Law (you resurrected a 2-year-old thread). The 2017 Law says:

Quote

Declarer may correct an unintended designation of a card from dummy until he next plays a card from either his own hand or from dummy. A change of designation may be allowed after a slip of the tongue, but not after a loss of concentration or a reconsideration of action. 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 16C1).

So the TD needs to determine whether this was a slip of the tongue or he changed his mind. If he allows the change, the opponent can take back his 9 and play a different card. 16C says that the fact that he has the 9 is UI for declarer, AI for his partner. 47D is redundant, it just says what was already said about withdrawing the card and substituting it.