Is declarer dummy's partner?

[pran]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

Only if Bill Clinton takes up the game. :lol:

[TMorris]

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

[blackshoe]

Well, we can discuss changes here until we're blue in the face, but then we need to get the WBFLC to listen. Maybe that'll work out, maybe not.

[pran]

I believe that there can be no doubt about the intention with Law 45C4{b} and just repeating that this law doesn't say what it is intended to say cannot bring us any further.

 

May I suggest that some of the main critics of Law 45C4{b} come forward with a useful suggestion for a new text that meets this known intention while catering for all following possible situations with an unintended designation:

1: Declarer has designated a card from dummy

2: Declarer has designated a card from his own hand

3: A defender has designated a card from his own hand

 

And while they are at it they can try to include:

4: Declarer has designated one particular penalty card among more than one penalty cards held by a defender

which I am in serious doubt whether it is covered by any law in the book.

[alphatango]

I believe that there can be no doubt about the intention with Law 45C4{b} and just repeating that this law doesn't say what it is intended to say cannot bring us any further.

 

May I suggest that some of the main critics of Law 45C4{b} come forward with a useful suggestion for a new text that meets this known intention while catering for all following possible situations with an unintended designation: (snip)

 

*shrug* I'll make a quick attempt:

 

b) Until a card has been played from his partner's hand, a player may change an unintended designation of a card from his own hand if he does so without pause for thought.

 

c) Until a card has subsequently been played by his side, declarer may change an unintended designation of a card from any other hand if he does so without pause for thought.

 

d) If, following a change of designation as in b) or c) above, 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).

[pran]

*shrug* I'll make a quick attempt:

 

b) Until a card has been played from his partner's hand, a player may change an unintended designation of a card from his own hand if he does so without pause for thought.

 

c) Until a card has subsequently been played by his side, declarer may change an unintended designation of a card from any other hand if he does so without pause for thought.

 

d) If, following a change of designation as in b) or c) above, 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).

Yes, quite a good attempt.

but:

c) Until a card has subsequently been played by his side ... - the play of the designated card is subsequent to the designation so .....?

[blackshoe]

So we need to define the verb "to play (a card)". You seem to believe the definition is "to move to or place a card in the played position". Or we need to take into account the possibility (for dummy or I suppose either defender with multiple penalty cards) of such a move having already taking place.

 

Perhaps Until a card has subsequently been played by the partner of the player holding the designated card…

[pran]

So we need to define the verb "to play (a card)". You seem to believe the definition is "to move to or place a card in the played position". Or we need to take into account the possibility (for dummy or I suppose either defender with multiple penalty cards) of such a move having already taking place.

 

Perhaps Until a card has subsequently been played by the partner of the player holding the designated card…

Sure, that looks even better. But there may still be questions (and discussions): What if the unintended designation was for one of two (or more) penalty cards? And I had to read the line carefully at least twice before feeling sure about what it says.

 

Honestly I feel that as we (probably all) know the intention of this law and how it is intended, should we not let it rest and just apply it accordingly? So far I have never had any problem with this law, not (until this thread) even with SBs insisting on what the law really says. :unsure:

[RMB1]

A player may change an unintended designation of a card to be played

(to a trick),

if he does so without pause for thought,

and if

(subsequent to the designation)

a card has not been played

(to the same trick)

from the hand

opposite the hand from which original card was to be played.

[axman]

I believe that there can be no doubt about the intention with Law 45C4{b} and just repeating that this law doesn't say what it is intended to say cannot bring us any further.

 

May I suggest that some of the main critics of Law 45C4{b} come forward with a useful suggestion for a new text that meets this known intention while catering for all following possible situations with an unintended designation:

1: Declarer has designated a card from dummy

2: Declarer has designated a card from his own hand

3: A defender has designated a card from his own hand

 

And while they are at it they can try to include:

4: Declarer has designated one particular penalty card among more than one penalty cards held by a defender

which I am in serious doubt whether it is covered by any law in the book.

 

As burn asserts that by law dummy plays no cards [i do not dispute this, and, as I would spend upwards of 300 hours ascertaining whether to dispute, I am disinclined to think about it] and I suggest that the passage is kaka, I should think that the assertion that the intention of the law being indisputable is rather dubious.

 

This notion is further buttressed by Endicott [the very person that selected the words and punctuation and the order that they appear in the 2007 and 2008 versions], who described as his personal opinion that bridge is what is described in the law. Make what you wish of the tautology, but I for one see little point of figuring out the intention of kaka.

 

As for the challenge to produce a set of words that do work. As I have alluded in the past, if it is to be done at all then it ought to be done right; and to get right 45C4 all the pieces around it must necessarily be gotten right, and all the pieces around those pieces must be gotten right.

Well, the vast majority of interested parties that frequent these pages profess that bridge law, by and large, has been gotten right. Yet my analysis has yielded that practically every phrase has been gotten wrong.

 

For instance, the use of ‘may’ in L45C4:

 

Is it appropriate for the law to give a player permission to take two turns to the opponents’ one? yet that is what the ‘may’ accomplishes. If it is appropriate** to provide a do-over at all the right approach is to give no permission at all. And if a player does a ‘do-over’ then have it stand without penalty, or not, based on a set of criteria; where the criteria should apply the same to all including ‘those known to cheat’.

 

** the sequence of events here leads to the Alcatraz coup [the perpetrator learns something of the opponents’ holdings]

 

And why is this the right way? Because giving permission gives explicit encouragement for contestants to be unfair.

 

I should hope that by now it is clear that getting L45C4 <sic> right is a task that will encompass some 32000 words

[bluejak]

A player may change an unintended designation of a card to be played

(to a trick),

if he does so without pause for thought,

and if

(subsequent to the designation)

a card has not been played

(to the same trick)

from the hand

opposite the hand from which original card was to be played.

The trouble with that wording is that there is no cutoff point at all if the player is third or fourth to play to a trick: since the pause for thought is from the realisation, when he realises two tricks later he may change it.

 

:ph34r:

 

Well, the vast majority of interested parties that frequent these pages profess that bridge law, by and large, has been gotten right. Yet my analysis has yielded that practically every phrase has been gotten wrong.

Have they? My recollection is that of the people I trust the feeling is that the intent of most Laws is fine. But not necessarily the wording. But you seem to be confusing the two.

[mycroft]

Oh, I believe the wording of most laws is fine. But most laws never come up in rulings (you know, like rank of cards, suits, the score, ...). The ones that are used to rule most often definitely fit in "we know what it means, and almost all the time what it says *is* what it means, but there are these edge cases which seem to come up more than a negligible fraction of the time, that we should probably word correctly", though, if not "so, what does this *mean*, exactly?" or "try again, this is just as unworkable in practise as the last two attempts."

 

It is unfortunate that (players griping about "changing all the time" to the contrary) the WBFLC does not feel the need or ability to do an emergency reword/explanation/change to those laws that clearly are unworkable as written in practise, leaving interpretation to the ZOs and being "stuck with it" for a decade. But the temptation to tinker all the time would be worse, so it's a complaint that I'm willing to live with.