[dburn]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-15, 12:15, said:

So now we need to decide what "play" means?

Perhaps. But consider:

Dummy has a spade and a heart (and some diamonds, and perhaps a club or two).

Declarer (South), intending to say "heart", inadvertently says "spade". Dummy, who is thinking of a plan to dye one's whiskers green, does not move. Yet I believe we are all agreed (even pran and bluejak) that dummy's spade is a played card the moment the word "spade" passes declarer's lips.

Hence, East is not committing any irregularity when he follows suit with a spade. South now realises what he has done, and wants to correct his inadvertent designation so that North's heart and not North's spade becomes the lead to the trick.

The Director is summoned, and is convinced that South's original designation "spade" was "unintended" within the meaning of Law 45C4:

Laws of Duplicate Bridge said:

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).

Since South has not yet played a card, the Director gives passing consideration only to the first seven words of this Law: the heart is played from dummy (who by now has completed his design to keep the Menai bridge from rust, so places the heart in the played position); East (if he wishes, or if he has a heart) changes his card; and all continue on their way rejoicing. Again, I do not believe that anyone here would dispute this procedure.

Now consider:

Events occur exactly as above, except that South plays the king of hearts to the trick before realising what he has done. He again wishes to change his original inadvertent designation, and the Director remains convinced that Law 45C4 applies as far as lack of intention is concerned.

The Director must now consider the first seven words of Law 45C4: do they mean that South cannot change his designation because South is North's partner and has played a card (the king of hearts)? That (as far as I can tell) is the view of bluejak, pran and perhaps others - and I should say here that it seems to me a perfectly sensible and practical view.

Unfortunately, it does not seem to me a legally sound view. North did not play the spade from dummy - South did that, and the card was played even though North had not physically done anything with it. For the purposes of Law 45C4, then, the "player" referred to can only be South, and "Until his partner has played a card" can mean only "Until North has played a card". Per Law 45B ( inter alia) North cannot actually play a card at all; and per Law 42A3 North (dummy) did not actually play the spade in any case (yet it was played).

So, South may change his designation after all (even if West has also played to the trick).

A question for those who consider that South may not change his designation: suppose South does not have any spades - does he still have to play the king of hearts?

[lamford]

David seems completely correct, and the Law, like many of the other Laws, is hopelessly worded. What is wrong with "Until he has played a card to that trick, declarer may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought."? Am I missing some other situation?

[nige1]

The definitions in the law-book can obviously be improved. But there's no need for law-makers to open this particular can of worms. This controversy disappears if the rules make no special dispensations for mistaken designations and mechanical errors. The rules also become simpler and fairer because the rewards for rationalisers (and liars) are reduced.

[bluejak]

dburn, on 2011-June-15, 14:33, said:

Declarer (South), intending to say "heart", inadvertently says "spade". Dummy, who is thinking of a plan to dye one's whiskers green, does not move. Yet I believe we are all agreed (even pran and bluejak) that dummy's spade is a played card the moment the word "spade" passes declarer's lips.

Not necessarily bluejak. It must be played, of course, but I have always considered the Law means that playing a card from dummy is a two part process, first calling for the card, then dummy moving it.

dburn, on 2011-June-15, 14:33, said:

The Director must now consider the first seven words of Law 45C4: do they mean that South cannot change his designation because South is North's partner and has played a card (the king of hearts)? That (as far as I can tell) is the view of bluejak, pran and perhaps others - and I should say here that it seems to me a perfectly sensible and practical view.

Unfortunately, it does not seem to me a legally sound view. North did not play the spade from dummy - South did that, and the card was played even though North had not physically done anything with it. For the purposes of Law 45C4, then, the "player" referred to can only be South, and "Until his partner has played a card" can mean only "Until North has played a card". Per Law 45B ( inter alia) North cannot actually play a card at all; and per Law 42A3 North (dummy) did not actually play the spade in any case (yet it was played).

Well, maybe, or maybe not. If you read all the Laws concerning dummy I think it is clear that the lawmakers have failed to clarify whether dummy is declarer's partner, or his agent, or a nonentity. Since the Laws are unclear we need to decide what is meant by "until his partner played" and I think that it means until declarer plays from hand. If the Law was clearer perhaps it would not, but where a Law is unclear then I think we have the right to interpret it in the way we think is intended.

[blackshoe]

I think dummy is both declarer's partner and his agent.

Quote

Law 80C2, in part: The director’s duties and powers normally include also the following: to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder.

The emphasis is mine.

[pran]

lamford, on 2011-June-15, 17:23, said:

David seems completely correct, and the Law, like many of the other Laws, is hopelessly worded. What is wrong with "Until he has played a card to that trick, declarer may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought."? Am I missing some other situation?

Yes, you are missing the fact that this law applies also when a defender (or even declarer) designates a card to be played from his own hand when this designation is unintended.

[pran]

dburn, on 2011-June-15, 14:33, said:

Perhaps. But consider:

Dummy has a spade and a heart (and some diamonds, and perhaps a club or two).

Declarer (South), intending to say "heart", inadvertently says "spade". Dummy, who is thinking of a plan to dye one's whiskers green, does not move. Yet I believe we are all agreed (even pran and bluejak) that dummy's spade is a played card the moment the word "spade" passes declarer's lips.

Hence, East is not committing any irregularity when he follows suit with a spade. South now realises what he has done, and wants to correct his inadvertent designation so that North's heart and not North's spade becomes the lead to the trick.

The Director is summoned, and is convinced that South's original designation "spade" was "unintended" within the meaning of Law 45C4:


Since South has not yet played a card, the Director gives passing consideration only to the first seven words of this Law: the heart is played from dummy (who by now has completed his design to keep the Menai bridge from rust, so places the heart in the played position); East (if he wishes, or if he has a heart) changes his card; and all continue on their way rejoicing. Again, I do not believe that anyone here would dispute this procedure.

Now consider:

Events occur exactly as above, except that South plays the king of hearts to the trick before realising what he has done. He again wishes to change his original inadvertent designation, and the Director remains convinced that Law 45C4 applies as far as lack of intention is concerned.

The Director must now consider the first seven words of Law 45C4: do they mean that South cannot change his designation because South is North's partner and has played a card (the king of hearts)? That (as far as I can tell) is the view of bluejak, pran and perhaps others - and I should say here that it seems to me a perfectly sensible and practical view.

Unfortunately, it does not seem to me a legally sound view. North did not play the spade from dummy - South did that, and the card was played even though North had not physically done anything with it. For the purposes of Law 45C4, then, the "player" referred to can only be South, and "Until his partner has played a card" can mean only "Until North has played a card". Per Law 45B ( inter alia) North cannot actually play a card at all; and per Law 42A3 North (dummy) did not actually play the spade in any case (yet it was played).

So, South may change his designation after all (even if West has also played to the trick).

[...]

It is even worse: Once we state that dummy never plays a card (declarer always play both hands) the time limit for changing an unintended designation by declarer never expires!

Just imagine declarer stating at trick ten: "Oh, did I designate a heart from dummy at trick five? I never intended that; I meant to play a spade. Director! I want my designation at trick five to be withdrawn and the play changed".

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2011-June-15, 17:23, said:

David seems completely correct, and the Law, like many of the other Laws, is hopelessly worded. What is wrong with "Until he has played a card to that trick, declarer may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought."? Am I missing some other situation?

You're missing out defenders, who were presumably meant to be included (although in practice I've not seen this law used by them).

[dburn]

pran, on 2011-June-16, 00:43, said:

It is even worse: Once we state that dummy never plays a card (declarer always play both hands) the time limit for changing an unintended designation by declarer never expires!

Theoretically, this is indeed the case. As a practical matter, though, one might hold that a player who wishes to change a designation after the completion of the current trick may not do so, since there has been a "pause for thought" as referred to in Law 45C4.

[dburn]

gordontd, on 2011-June-16, 02:20, said:

You're missing out defenders, who were presumably meant to be included (although in practice I've not seen this law used by them).

Nor have I for some considerable time. But the annual match between London and the St Dunstan's institute for blind ex-service people used to be one of the more memorable fixtures on the calendar.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-June-16, 02:20, said:

You're missing out defenders, who were presumably meant to be included (although in practice I've not seen this law used by them).

When do defenders designate a card? I suppose with visually impaired players, where cards might be called out, a misdescription of the card actually played could be dealt with in the same way. But the TD is empowered to make provisions in such cases anyway, so only the declarer is needed in this law.

[axman]

dburn, on 2011-June-15, 14:33, said:

Perhaps. But consider:

Dummy has a spade and a heart (and some diamonds, and perhaps a club or two).

Declarer (South), intending to say "heart", inadvertently says "spade". Dummy, who is thinking of a plan to dye one's whiskers green, does not move. Yet I believe we are all agreed (even pran and bluejak) that dummy's spade is a played card the moment the word "spade" passes declarer's lips.

Hence, East is not committing any irregularity when he follows suit with a spade. South now realises what he has done, and wants to correct his inadvertent designation so that North's heart and not North's spade becomes the lead to the trick.

The Director is summoned, and is convinced that South's original designation "spade" was "unintended" within the meaning of Law 45C4:


Since South has not yet played a card, the Director gives passing consideration only to the first seven words of this Law: the heart is played from dummy (who by now has completed his design to keep the Menai bridge from rust, so places the heart in the played position); East (if he wishes, or if he has a heart) changes his card; and all continue on their way rejoicing. Again, I do not believe that anyone here would dispute this procedure.

Now consider:

Events occur exactly as above, except that South plays the king of hearts to the trick before realising what he has done. He again wishes to change his original inadvertent designation, and the Director remains convinced that Law 45C4 applies as far as lack of intention is concerned.

The Director must now consider the first seven words of Law 45C4: do they mean that South cannot change his designation because South is North's partner and has played a card (the king of hearts)? That (as far as I can tell) is the view of bluejak, pran and perhaps others - and I should say here that it seems to me a perfectly sensible and practical view.

Unfortunately, it does not seem to me a legally sound view. North did not play the spade from dummy - South did that, and the card was played even though North had not physically done anything with it. For the purposes of Law 45C4, then, the "player" referred to can only be South, and "Until his partner has played a card" can mean only "Until North has played a card". Per Law 45B ( inter alia) North cannot actually play a card at all; and per Law 42A3 North (dummy) did not actually play the spade in any case (yet it was played).

So, South may change his designation after all (even if West has also played to the trick).

A question for those who consider that South may not change his designation: suppose South does not have any spades - does he still have to play the king of hearts?

As incongruous as it may appear to impart human abilities to inanimate objects [dummy’s cards] I believe that the case is substantial that ‘until his partner has played’ should be parsed when referring to [the case of] dummy’s hand as ‘until a card from dummy’s hand has been played’. [a] when a play is made it is understood by convention [of the language in conjunction with the law concerning play of cards] that it is the play of a card [b] the definition of dummy includes that of the cards that comprise dummy’s hand.

The purpose of this assertion is to straighten out the antecedents [for the law’s use of pronouns] by providing an equivalent form to the phrase. And by equivalent I mean that the meaning is not changed in an appreciable way.

[2] when it is written in the form ‘unitl X then B may occur’ [[as the subject law was written] it then provides that ‘once X has occurred then this rule thereafter does not permit B’.

[3] a disproportionate amount of focus has to date landed upon the use of declarer and dummy while not enough focus has accrued to the person doing the designating. And in this case of interest that person is declarer and the partner is dummy.

And at this point an assimilation can be made: given that declarer designates spade it follows that declarer’s partner’s card [a spade] has been played ostensibly by declarer’s partner’s hand.

Which begs the question, ‘has declarer’s partner played a card?’ and if the answer is yes [which it is indeed] then the rule does not permit declarer to change the designation [including whatever repercussions would have ensued].

Now, for the sake of discussion consider the situation that the above is T10. Can it be said that all four hands have played to T9? Yes. And T8? Yes. And so forth? Yes. And so, have not all hands played a card and as such none of them may be permitted by the rule to change their designation thereafter? It thus is so.

It does seem that the rule is only ‘in-play’ for a short duration, if at all, for any particular hand.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2011-June-16, 06:35, said:

When do defenders designate a card? I suppose with visually impaired players, where cards might be called out, a misdescription of the card actually played could be dealt with in the same way. But the TD is empowered to make provisions in such cases anyway, so only the declarer is needed in this law.

For once the lawmakers have prepared for an eventuality before we've seen it happen, and you think they would be better just hoping it doesn't?

I drop a card on the floor that I'm about to play as defender, and having difficulty reaching it I say "small diamond". Then, as I pick it up, I realise that the wrong word came out my mouth, in the confusion of my exertion, and it was actually a small club - both in my mind and in fact.

[AlexJonson]

Presumably declarer, say sitting South, could be designating a card to be played by, say, East when there will be an appreciable time before dummy has played.

[blackshoe]

This is all very interesting (not!) but I don't see why we should bother. The law works as currently interpreted. Why don't we leave it at that?

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-June-16, 09:12, said:

For once the lawmakers have prepared for an eventuality before we've seen it happen, and you think they would be better just hoping it doesn't?

I drop a card on the floor that I'm about to play as defender, and having difficulty reaching it I say "small diamond". Then, as I pick it up, I realise that the wrong word came out my mouth, in the confusion of my exertion, and it was actually a small club - both in my mind and in fact.

OK, I can accept that, and therefore it needs the Law to read:
Until he has played a card to that trick, declarer may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. Until a defender's partner has played a card to that trick, a defender may also change an unintended designation.

And while the law as interpreted may work fine, that does not mean improving it is not worthwhile. Which presumably is the purpose of this section of the forum?

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-16, 09:54, said:

This is all very interesting (not!) but I don't see why we should bother. The law works as currently interpreted. Why don't we leave it at that?

Because current law is over-complex and unclear (at best) and this is the "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-16, 09:54, said:

This is all very interesting (not!) but I don't see why we should bother. The law works as currently interpreted. Why don't we leave it at that?

Because while it's obvious what the law is intended to say, it actually says something different. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs. A player who would have been better off with a ruling which follows the letter of the law has legitimate grounds for complaint against a ruling which doesn't.

IOW, what dburn's signature says

[jh51]

barmar, on 2011-June-15, 14:10, said:

Should the next edition of the Law have a definition of "is"?

Only if Bill Clinton takes up the game.

[TMorris]

one might think that any sport that has rules that are so difficult to interpret has rules that are not fit for purpose.