[dburn]

South, declarer at no trumps, says "spade" intending to say "heart". This is borne out because when East follows with a spade, South (who has spades) plays the king of hearts. West (who has no spades) plays a low heart and South now says "Sorry - I meant to ask for a heart." Assuming that the Director accepts this as an attempt to change an unintended designation:

May South lead a heart from dummy?

If so, may East (who has no hearts) change the spade he has played for some other card?

Must South play the king of hearts?

May West change the heart he has played for some other heart?

If your answer to the first question was "no", you may have been disinclined to consider the other three. This was an error on your part.

[bluejak]

 dburn, on 2011-June-12, 09:07, said:

South, declarer at no trumps, says "spade" intending to say "heart". This is borne out because when East follows with a spade, South (who has spades) plays the king of hearts. West (who has no spades) plays a low heart and South now says "Sorry - I meant to ask for a heart." Assuming that the Director accepts this as an attempt to change an unintended designation:

May South lead a heart from dummy?

No, out of time. Partner has played subsequently.

Quote

If so, may East (who has no hearts) change the spade he has played for some other card?

No. No Law allows such a change.

Quote

Must South play the king of hearts?

No. He has revoked, it is not established. Law 62A requires a correction. Law 62B2 requires no further rectification for him.

Quote

May West change the heart he has played for some other heart?

Yes. Law 62C1 allows defenders to change cards played after corrected revokes. He may also change it for a card of another suit.

Quote

If your answer to the first question was "no", you may have been disinclined to consider the other three. This was an error on your part.

True.

[blackshoe]

My answer to dburn's second question differs, David. Sorry. See, he said "if so", meaning "if South is allowed to change his designation". So my answer would be "yes, if the lead from dummy can be changed, declarer's RHO can change the card he played (Law 45C4{b})". However, I agree that when the lead cannot be changed, declarer's RHO cannot change his play. Other than this minor difference, I agree with your answers.

[dburn]

 bluejak, on 2011-June-12, 09:28, said:

No, out of time. Partner has played subsequently.

No, he hasn't. You see, "declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card" - dummy does not, indeed cannot, actually play a card himself.

Declarer, who may change an unintended designation "until his partner has played a card", may certainly therefore change it after he has played a card from his own hand, and after his left-hand opponent has played a card, since his partner has not played a card (and cannot do so until at least the start of the play period on the next hand).

You didn't think that was what the Law said? To tell you the truth, neither did I until recently. We were wrong.

[bluejak]

 dburn, on 2011-June-12, 16:41, said:

No, he hasn't. You see, "declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card" - dummy does not, indeed cannot, actually play a card himself.

Declarer, who may change an unintended designation "until his partner has played a card", may certainly therefore change it after he has played a card from his own hand, and after his left-hand opponent has played a card, since his partner has not played a card (and cannot do so until at least the start of the play period on the next hand).

You didn't think that was what the Law said? To tell you the truth, neither did I until recently. We were wrong.

Having re-read the Law, no, I do not agree with you, though I do understand you. Whether declarer is dummy's partner is different in different situations, and I agree is not well-thought-out. All the same I think my interpretation correct.

[blackshoe]

dburn may be right as to what the law actually says, but I think dws is right as to how it is currently (and should be, imo) interpreted.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2011-June-12, 22:46, said:

dburn may be right as to what the law actually says, but I think dws is right as to how it is currently (and should be, imo) interpreted.

IMO bluejak is right, not only in interpretation but also as to what the law actually says.

Observe that dummy and declarer are separate players wherever this is relevant in the laws. We are all fully aware of this when applying Law 64A and there is no reason why the same should not apply for Law 45C4{b}. (I certainly hope that no director rules a two trick revoke when declarer revoked and the trick was won in dummy?)

[campboy]

Declarer and dummy may be separate players, but certainly declarer is not his own partner. So how can whether declarer has played from hand affect whether declarer is allowed to change a designation?

We might argue that declarer can never change a designation once dummy (his partner) has physically played that card (law 42A3 says that dummy "plays the cards of the dummy", and we know what that means); we might argue as dburn does. But it is not consistent with the wording of the law, in particular the use of the word "partner", to say that he can change his designation until he himself has played from hand but no later.

[pran]

 campboy, on 2011-June-13, 03:18, said:

Declarer and dummy may be separate players, but certainly declarer is not his own partner. So how can whether declarer has played from hand affect whether declarer is allowed to change a designation?

We might argue that declarer can never change a designation once dummy (his partner) has physically played that card (law 42A3 says that dummy "plays the cards of the dummy", and we know what that means); we might argue as dburn does. But it is not consistent with the wording of the law, in particular the use of the word "partner", to say that he can change his designation until he himself has played from hand but no later.

Declarer is dummy's partner.

The actual words used in Law 45C4{b} make it appliccable regardless of for which of the four hands the designation was made (provided of course that the conditions in this law are met), it is not limited to when declarer designates a card from dummy.

[campboy]

 pran, on 2011-June-13, 05:08, said:

Declarer is dummy's partner.

The actual words used in Law 45C4{b} make it appliccable regardless of for which of the four hands the designation was made (provided of course that the conditions in this law are met), it is not limited to when declarer designates a card from dummy.

Sure. But 45C4b talks about the partner of the player who designated the card, and the player who designated is declarer, so his partner is dummy. Whether declarer designates a card in his own hand or a card from dummy, then, he may not change the designation after dummy has played.

[pran]

 campboy, on 2011-June-13, 06:42, said:

Sure. But 45C4b talks about the partner of the player who designated the card, and the player who designated is declarer, so his partner is dummy. Whether declarer designates a card in his own hand or a card from dummy, then, he may not change the designation after dummy has played.

Let me see what this would mean:

Case 1 (Unlikely, but not impossible): Declarer or either defender designates a card to be played from their own hand and the designation is deemed unintended. Until dummy or the other defender (as the case may be) has played a card this unintended designation may be changed.

Case 2 (The common situation for Law 45C4{b}: Declarer designates a card to be played from dummy and the designation is deemed unintended. Only until dummy "plays" the designated card may this unintended designation be changed (and the provision: 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 can never apply. Why? Because his play is premature, i.e. not in turn so long as dummy has not actually "played" the designated card, and afterwards the designation cannot be changed anyway.)

Does this make sense? Not to me.

Now let us take a little look at the story of this law:
Until 2007 the corresponding law read: A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw without penalty the card so played and substitute another

As we can see there was one essential change in this law in 2007: The replacement of the clause "without pause for thought" with the specific time limit "Until his partner has played a card".

There is no doubt that before 2007 a declarer could correct his unintended designation until he became aware of it, which in most cases would be at the latest when he was about to play to the trick from his own hand. The change of words in 2007 made it clear that this should indeed be the absolute time limit (and apply equally whether the designation was made by declarer or by a defender), of course in addition to the condition that the designation must be deemed inadvertent (or unintended).

IMHO we can safely assume that the word "partner" in Law 45C4{b} is intended as a reference to the partner of the player holding the designated card. The wording is then clearly unfortunate, but I have in vain tried to find a better wording that will cater for both cases 1 and 2 above.

[blackshoe]

This has become the kind of argument that caused me to give up on blml. Maybe it should be moved there.

[campboy]

Perhaps it should be moved to changing laws and regulations, if it continues. Naturally I agree with pran that the lawmakers intended to write a law allowing the change to be made until declarer plays from hand and no later, but I also agree with dburn that what they actually wrote does not acheive this.

[dburn]

 pran, on 2011-June-13, 02:51, said:

IMO bluejak is right, not only in interpretation but also as to what the law actually says.

Observe that dummy and declarer are separate players wherever this is relevant in the laws. We are all fully aware of this when applying Law 64A

Indeed. But this is because there is a helpful footnote to the effect that "a trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes of this Law".

 pran, on 2011-June-13, 02:51, said:

and there is no reason why the same should not apply for Law 45C4{b}

There is no such helpful footnote for Law 45C4b. Exceptio probat regulam, I might say, if I thought you would understand it.

[blackshoe]

From Chapter One of the Laws:

Quote

Partner: the player with whom one plays as a side against the other two players at the table.

Quote

Dummy: 1) declarer’s partner…

If dummy is declarer's partner, then declarer is dummy's partner.

[dburn]

Oh, there is no doubt that declarer is dummy's partner and vice versa. But the actual question is: does declarer play dummy's cards, or does dummy play dummy's cards?

[blackshoe]

Quote

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.

Quote

Law 42A3: Dummy plays the cards of the dummy as declarer’s agent as directed.

The latter is, it seems to me, poorly worded. Perhaps "Dummy places the cards of the dummy in the played position as directed by declarer". But in any case, Law 45B governs; declarer plays dummy's cards.

[campboy]

It seems clear from the laws you quoted that both declarer and dummy play dummy's cards.

[blackshoe]

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

[barmar]

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