Mechanic mistake

[Vampyr]

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]

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]

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.

 

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

 

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.