[1eyedjack]

Hi.

Please someone tell me, which law takes precedence between
Law 45C1, which forbits the retraction of a card played if certain conditions are satisfied, and
Law 45C4(b), which permits the retraction of a card played if certain conditions are satisifed,
under circumstances in which the conditions of both sections are satisfied?
Or does Law 45C4(b) only apply to the declaring side (it does not expressly say so)?

[jhenrikj]

45C4b only applies from the dummy. It's only from the dummy you designate a card to be played. All the other just play a card.

[blackshoe]

If a defender, at his turn to play, says "I'm going to play the ♠3", then he has designated that card to be played. Granted, defenders are unlikely to do that, but they might, and the laws need to account for the possibility.

[1eyedjack]

Yes, defenders with a disability, such as blindness, paralysis or amputees, may need to "designate" (see that book "The Card Turner"). I think it odd although refreshing if the lawmakers had this in mind when writing the laws, although in that case it seems equally odd that a draughtsman with such foresight should not also be alert to the apparent tension between subsections 1 and 4(b) of law 45C in that event and then expressly to state the order of precedence in that situation.
Designating a card to be played has, to all intents and purposes, the same effect as exposing it (to partner's view).

[blackshoe]

When a player designates a card in a closed hand (so either defender or declarer, referring to a card in his own hand) that card "must be played" (Law 45C4{a}) but is not yet played. A card held by a defender so that his partner could see its face must be played (Law 45C1). If these are different cards, then both must be played to the trick, and now Law 45E1 is applied. I would find out which card fell under "must be played" first, and require the defender to play that card, and the other one becomes a penalty card (Laws 49 and 50), unless the player was leading, in which case either Law 53 or Law 56 applies. Note that 45C4{b} allows the player to change his designation if it was inadvertent, and if he changes it to the exposed card, there is no problem, as now only one card "must be played" to the trick.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-24, 09:48, said:

If these are different cards, then both must be played to the trick, and now Law 45E1 is applied. I would find out which card fell under "must be played" first, and require the defender to play that card, and the other one becomes a penalty card...

THe punctuation here suggests strongly that you advise to verify which if any of those cards must be played as compelled by law, and any that are not thus compelled when there is at least one that is compelled then the ones that are not compelled become PCs.

I'll suggest that while it might be difficult to find a passage in law which says this:

the card that would be the first to be played is to be the one played to the trick. I would think that it is the proper standard; and, that while on occasion the above advice may well lead to the same outcome, it would not be by design, but by happenstance- and thus is unsuitable advice.

[1eyedjack]

I think that there is a risk of overcomplicating the problem that I am trying to resolve, by considering a complex initial state (a card exposed by defender to partner coupled with an (almost) simultaneous designation by alternative means of a different card). Let us stick with a simple initial state first and be sure that we have the correct answer to that.

I start with asking whether, when interpreting the laws, we are more concerned with substance over form, or with form over substance. To my mind, but for any express wording in the Laws (for which there would presumably be some justification) there is no significant difference between a defender saying "I play the Spade 3, oops I mean the Spade Ace" on the one hand and, on the other, exposing the Spade 3 to his partner in error and then immediately, without pause for thought, retracting it and laying the Spade Ace on the table. By "no significant difference" I refer to damage done to one side or the other, or advantage obtained by UI. I grant that there is a possibly significant difference in that by using a designation as opposed to card exposure, the defender could in theory designate a card that he does not in fact hold, which is not a possibility when exposing a card. If that possibility makes a material difference to the legal treatment then I shall be interested to learn how and why, but for the time being I am assuming that it does not make a material difference.

In the first instance, "I play the Spade 3, oops I mean the Spade Ace", it would appear that, by reading the letter of the law and possibly disregarding its spirit, law 45C4(b) allows him to play the Spade Ace, and the conditions of law 45C1 have not been satisfied unless you interpret the first part "I play the Spade 3" as being essentially the same in effect as that of exposing the Spade 3 to his partner. By contrast, if he actually exposes the Spade 3 to his partner, then Law 45C1 requires that he play that card *IF* it is determined that the conditions of 45C4(b) have not been satisfied or if 45C1 takes precedence in any event.

Personally I would far rather play in an environment in which both types of transgression received equal treatment. I realise that I do not get that choice (unless you say that in fact they are treated equally). At this stage I am not overly concerned with whether there is a penalty card created out of the change of mind. I agree that this is a valid and important point to resolve, but at the moment I am more concerned with whether the defender can in fact specify a card to be played other than that which is first notified to his partner (whether by exposure or designation).

For the avoidance of doubt, when in the original post I said that the conditions for both subsections were satisfied, I did not intend to imply that the defender had designated one card and exposed another. I intended to imply that the act of designating the card acts as exposing that same card. If that implication is unwarranted then we are back to the "form over substance" argument.

[pran]

1eyedjack, on 2011-April-24, 11:09, said:

I think that there is a risk of overcomplicating the problem that I am trying to resolve, by considering a complex initial state (a card exposed by defender to partner coupled with an (almost) simultaneous designation by alternative means of a different card). Let us stick with a simple initial state first and be sure that we have the correct answer to that.

I start with asking whether, when interpreting the laws, we are more concerned with substance over form, or with form over substance. To my mind, but for any express wording in the Laws (for which there would presumably be some justification) there is no significant difference between a defender saying "I play the Spade 3, oops I mean the Spade Ace" on the one hand and, on the other, exposing the Spade 3 to his partner in error and then immediately, without pause for thought, retracting it and laying the Spade Ace on the table. By "no significant difference" I refer to damage done to one side or the other, or advantage obtained by UI. I grant that there is a possibly significant difference in that by using a designation as opposed to card exposure, the defender could in theory designate a card that he does not in fact hold, which is not a possibility when exposing a card. If that possibility makes a material difference to the legal treatment then I shall be interested to learn how and why, but for the time being I am assuming that it does not make a material difference.

In the first instance, "I play the Spade 3, oops I mean the Spade Ace", it would appear that, by reading the letter of the law and possibly disregarding its spirit, law 45C4(b) allows him to play the Spade Ace, and the conditions of law 45C1 have not been satisfied unless you interpret the first part "I play the Spade 3" as being essentially the same in effect as that of exposing the Spade 3 to his partner. By contrast, if he actually exposes the Spade 3 to his partner, then Law 45C1 requires that he play that card *IF* it is determined that the conditions of 45C4(b) have not been satisfied or if 45C1 takes precedence in any event.

Personally I would far rather play in an environment in which both types of transgression received equal treatment. I realise that I do not get that choice (unless you say that in fact they are treated equally). At this stage I am not overly concerned with whether there is a penalty card created out of the change of mind. I agree that this is a valid and important point to resolve, but at the moment I am more concerned with whether the defender can in fact specify a card to be played other than that which is first notified to his partner (whether by exposure or designation).

For the avoidance of doubt, when in the original post I said that the conditions for both subsections were satisfied, I did not intend to imply that the defender had designated one card and exposed another. I intended to imply that the act of designating the card acts as exposing that same card. If that implication is unwarranted then we are back to the "form over substance" argument.

If the defender in question has no Spade 3 but for some funny reason utters: "I play the Spade 3, oops I mean the Spade Ace" he will of course have to play his Spade Ace (assuming that he indeed has this card), and all there is to the story is then the possible consequences of an extraneous remark.

If, on the contrary he has both the 3 and the Ace of Spades he has now exposed two of his cards, one of which becomes played and the other to become a penalty card. In this case I would not rule two cards simultaneously played (Law 58B), but rather that the penalty card was exposed in a separate deliberate action, resulting in it becoming a major penalty card. (However, I might reconsider this ruling depending on the actual situation and the "class of player".)

[1eyedjack]

pran, on 2011-April-24, 11:43, said:

If, on the contrary he has both the 3 and the Ace of Spades he has now exposed two of his cards, one of which becomes played and the other to become a penalty card. In this case I would not rule two cards simultaneously played (Law 58B), but rather that the penalty card was exposed in a separate deliberate action, resulting in it becoming a major penalty card. (However, I might reconsider this ruling depending on the actual situation and the "class of player".)

Yes, but which (of the two) becomes the played card and which the penalty card? Following the logic of Law 45C1, the Spade 3 is the played card and Spade Ace the major penalty. Following the logic of Law 45C4(b), the Spade Ace is the played card and Spade 3 the penalty card. I am of course happy to be corrected, but if my understanding as above is correct this does not make (to me) a lot of sense.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2011-April-24, 10:15, said:

THe punctuation here suggests strongly that you advise to verify which if any of those cards must be played as compelled by law, and any that are not thus compelled when there is at least one that is compelled then the ones that are not compelled become PCs.

I'll suggest that while it might be difficult to find a passage in law which says this:

the card that would be the first to be played is to be the one played to the trick. I would think that it is the proper standard; and, that while on occasion the above advice may well lead to the same outcome, it would not be by design, but by happenstance- and thus is unsuitable advice.

I'm a simple man. Would you mind repeating that in simple English?

[pran]

1eyedjack, on 2011-April-24, 12:10, said:

Yes, but which (of the two) becomes the played card and which the penalty card? Following the logic of Law 45C1, the Spade 3 is the played card and Spade Ace the major penalty. Following the logic of Law 45C4(b), the Spade Ace is the played card and Spade 3 the penalty card. I am of course happy to be corrected, but if my understanding as above is correct this does not make (to me) a lot of sense.

This question does not come as a surprise to me, frankly I expected it although I deliberately omitted a definite answer at first. However, I tried to indicate that the "class of player" would have some impact on my ruling.

With "normally" experienced players I would rule that the 3 of Spades is played and that the Ace of Spades becomes a major penalty card.

With a beginner, or if the player was disabled in some way excusing the designation of the 3 of Spades as truly inadvertent I might quite well select a more lenient option like allowing the play of the Ace, and possibly even rule that the 3 of Spades becomes a minor penalty card.

[mjj29]

Yes, there is a substantive difference between cards physically played and cards designated via some other means. There are several reasons why this may be (although I do not claim that they are all good reasons).

Firstly, if you _inadvertently_ name an incorrect card, this does not in any way reveal that the incorrect card is in your hand. It's important here to stress inadvertently - in neither case are you allowed to change your mind about which card you wanted to play, you can merely play the card you intended to do all along, but had a slip of the tongue while naming it. Obviously if you withdraw the wrong card from your hand and it becomes visible to partner then you have revealed a card you do have. Despite your dismissal of this point, I think it is likely to be a large part of the reason for the difference between the laws.

Secondly, it is perhaps more likely to make an inadvertent designation than to lay an inadvertant card - and so the laws cater for you doing the former and not the latter.

Matt

[blackshoe]

The case where a player inadvertantly designates a card and then without pause for thought changes that designation is not the same in law as the case where a player designates a card and then exposes a different card (or vice versa). Both are different from the case where a player exposes two cards. Don't like that? Tough. In the first of those three cases there can be no penalty card, because the change of designation is legal. In fact, if a player designates a card unintentionally, he may legally change that designation until his partner has called.

"A single card below the rank of an honor exposed unintentionally becomes a minor penalty card". This should probably read "exposed or designated", if Sven's "it's a minor penalty card" is to be legal. But I don't think it was the intent of the law to allow that.

[bluejak]

I do not understand the problem.

If a card is designated one Law applies.

If a card is played a different Law applies.

What am I missing?

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-April-24, 17:08, said:

I do not understand the problem.

If a card is designated one Law applies.

If a card is played a different Law applies.

What am I missing?

Can a defender "designate" a card (ref law 45C4)?

[bluejak]

Certainly.

[dburn]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-24, 16:47, said:

The case where a player inadvertantly designates a card and then without pause for thought changes that designation is not the same in law as the case where a player designates a card and then exposes a different card (or vice versa). Both are different from the case where a player exposes two cards. Don't like that? Tough. In the first of those three cases there can be no penalty card, because the change of designation is legal. In fact, if a player designates a card unintentionally, he may legally change that designation until his partner has called.

Called him an idiot? Called for a taxi?

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-April-24, 17:40, said:

Certainly.

Exactly. Now what happens if that defender wants to have Law 45C4{b} applied to his unintended designation of ♠3 because he actually intended to designate (and play) the ♠A?

[bluejak]

The TD decides whether Law 45C4B applies in that particular case.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-April-25, 09:47, said:

The TD decides whether Law 45C4B applies in that particular case.

We are approaching a complete resolution to this thread; I believe the only remaining question that has been discussed is:
If the defender actually holds both designated cards in his hand do you then apply Law 49 on the card designated but not played, and do you in case rule that this card may qualify as a minor penalty card (Law 50B) or that it is a major penalty card regardless of its rank? Does it make any difference whether you allow the replacement of designation under law 45C4{b} or not?