[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2013-July-29, 15:19, said:

Pran: How do those excerpts from the 30's and 40's (which aren't in there now) help us determine if they were in the Laws after Mycroft was born?

 mycroft, on 2013-July-29, 10:52, said:

I don't have the pre-1974 Law Book.

So I just completed his post with the information I have available.

I couldn't find the 1963 laws so I don't know if "in the same breath" was removed then or in 1974. The main point is that this clause was indeed in the laws at some time.

[mycroft]

Absolutely it *was*. It's just *still* in the law book of many players (and a lot of club TDs), that's all.

Isn't there a thread on "eradicating bad ideas" in the WC? I thought it was going to be about this (and others like it).

[iviehoff]

 nige1, on 2013-July-27, 17:49, said:

The law should treat slips of the mind the same way as slips of the hand. The law would be simpler and fairer. Law-abiding players would suffer less of a disadvantage. Players would still ask the director to waive the rules for handicapped players, as they've always done. A fetid mire of pointless controversy would be drained.

Even if it did, it wouldn't change the ruling in the present case. The present case was clearly due to the player changing his mind on seeing the J, which is a deliberative change of mind, not a slip of the mind by any plausible definition.

But I disagree with you, for two reasons.

First, slips of the mind are qualitatively different from slips of the hand (or tongue or pen). In the latter case, the hand (or tongue or pen) accidentally does not do what the mind tells it to do, and we allow a correction if it is clear that is what happened. But in these latter cases the defining factor is what the mind directed. When we allow a change of what the mind directed, that is qualitatively different.

Second, clearly deliberative changes of mind should still be disallowed. So is it even practical to define a "slip of mind" so that is evidently different from a deliberative change of mind? I don't think so. So I think this is impractical.

Most games there are no "undos". Many people think bridge would be better if it was the same. Backgammon is an exception, which is facilitated by the fact that a move has an "end signal" when you pick up the dice, and nothing before that is complete.

[Siegmund]

The 1948 laws say "same breath."

The 1963 laws change to "without pause."

The 1975(duplicate)/1981(rubber) laws change further to "without pause for thought."

I think you could make a reasonable argument that the change to having thought matter, vs. purely timing, happened in mycroft's lifetime.

I think you could further argue -- based on the flap with the 1999 Vancouver appeal -- that at least some people believed the 1975/1981 change was to allow a correction even after a pause, in some cases, if no thought was going on, as opposed to disallow an immediate correction even if it was a change of mind. It would be nice if next time around they could be clearer about their intentions and make sure the choice of words in the book conveys those intentions.

[shevek]

Here's a different example:

South is in 7♠ and on lead.

♠ Q
♥ —
♦ 2



♠ —
♥ A2

Rather than claiming, South leads ♥A, West follows. South says "ruff".
Dummy obeys in tempo & East follows quickly.
Declarer "immediately" realises that he was a trick ahead of himself.
Can anything good happen?

[Vampyr]

 shevek, on 2013-August-04, 01:58, said:

Here's a different example:

South is in 7♠ and on lead.

♠ Q
♥ —
♦ 2



♠ —
♥ A2

Rather than claiming, South leads ♥A, West follows. South says "ruff".
Dummy obeys in tempo & East follows quickly.
Declarer "immediately" realises that he was a trick ahead of himself.
Can anything good happen?

Depends where you are sitting.

[nige1]

 shevek, on 2013-August-04, 01:58, said:

Here's a different example: South is in 7♠ and on lead.
♠ Q
♥ —
♦ 2

♠ —
♥ A2

Rather than claiming, South leads ♥A, West follows. South says "ruff".
Dummy obeys in tempo & East follows quickly.
Declarer "immediately" realises that he was a trick ahead of himself.
Can anything good happen?

♦2 is a winner?

[shevek]

 nige1, on 2013-August-04, 19:04, said:

♦2 is a winner?

Declarer quotes 45 C.4(b) "Until his partner has played a card, a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought."

This seems to imply no change since declarer has already played. I guess it only applies if dummy is 1st or 2nd to play. Is that right?
So let's try something else:

Dummy is on lead in 7NT and has been running hearts.

♥AK4


♥32

Declarer says "heart" and dummy dutifully leads ♥4 to East's quick ♥5.
Does South have a case now?

[pran]

 shevek, on 2013-August-04, 20:44, said:

Declarer quotes 45 C.4(b) "Until his partner has played a card, a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought."

This seems to imply no change since declarer has already played. I guess it only applies if dummy is 1st or 2nd to play. Is that right?
So let's try something else:

Dummy is on lead in 7NT and has been running hearts.

♥AK4


♥32

Declarer says "heart" and dummy dutifully leads ♥4 to East's quick ♥5.
Does South have a case now?

It Depends on the history.

But if dummy has been running hearts from a set of high cards then the ruling should be that he continues with more high cards.

Added: This is not really about Law 45C, it is about

Law 46B said:

In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):

(My Enhancement)

[gordontd]

 shevek, on 2013-August-04, 20:44, said:

Declarer quotes 45 C.4(b) "Until his partner has played a card, a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought."

This seems to imply no change since declarer has already played. I guess it only applies if dummy is 1st or 2nd to play. Is that right?

In my opinion, this is one of the most poorly-worded laws. I was already aware of two reasonable interpretations of it; now you have produced a third. In the EBU we had the White Book to help us:

Quote

8.45.3 Law 45C4 (b): What is ‘Until partner has played’?
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.