[RMB1]

Declarer intends to call for a diamond from dummy but everyone hears "heart" (the TD will find that declarer mis-spoke, and did say "heart" despite declarer's intention). Dummy places a heart in the played position. RHO plays a heart.

First scenario

Declarer plays a diamond, dummy says "having none" and it is established that declarer thought a diamond had been played by dummy; and even if he said "heart" it was not his intention.
We read Law 45C4(b):

Quote

Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. ...

and decide that in the case of declarer calling a card from dummy, "until his partner has played" must mean "until declarer has played from his own hand"?

So in this scenario it is too late to change the unintended designation. If the diamond played by declarer is a revoke, it is corrected, and play continues.

Second scenario

Declarer does not play, instead he asks RHO "having none" and it is established that declarer thought a diamond had been played by dummy. As soon as declarer realised that dummy had heard "heart", declarer corrected the designation to "diamond".

Is declarer in time to change the unintended designation?
Was there a "pause for thought"?
When does the "pause for thought" start?

In Law 25A, there is an official "interpretation" that "pause for thought" starts when the players becomes aware of his unintended/inadvertent action - does that apply here?

[aguahombre]

In the second one, it is obvious that declarer did not intend a heart to be played from dummy, and that he didn't become aware the heart had been put in the played position until after he proved (with his question) his intent to play something other than a heart.

There was no pause for thought.

[bluejak]

RMB1, on 2012-February-14, 11:44, said:

In Law 25A, there is an official "interpretation" that "pause for thought" starts when the players becomes aware of his unintended/inadvertent action - does that apply here?

It was considered fairly obvious in the case of Law 25A but the official interpretation was added explicitly when people started arguing about it. To me it is just as obvious in Law 45C4B. There was no pause for thought means no pause for effective thought and he cannot have effective thought about changing the card until he has realised it is the wrong card.

[jallerton]

It was considered fairly obvious that "without pause for thought" meant "without pause for thought". However, the powers that be at the WBFLC decided that they wanted the phrase to mean something else which is the reason for the official "interpretation" with regard to Law 25A.

Robin raises a good point: do we assume that if the 2007 Laws had been properly drafted to reflect the WBFLC's intentions, Law 25A would have read "...without pause for thought from the moment the player realises his error" or did the people responsible for the 2007 Laws really believe that "without pause for thought" means the same as "without pause for thought from the moment the player realises his error"? If the latter, then presumably the WBFLC would expect a similar "interpretation" to apply to Law 45C4. If the former, then perhaps not.

In Robin's examples, one would normally expect declarer to notice that dummy had put his hand on the "wrong" card before he had had the opportunity to see the next player's card, or to play his own, but I suppose sometimes people play cards too quickly without watching properly which card dummy has put his hands on.

[RMB1]

jallerton, on 2012-February-14, 17:44, said:

In Robin's examples, one would normally expect declarer to notice that dummy had put his hand on the "wrong" card before he had had the opportunity to see the next player's card, or to play his own, but I suppose sometimes people play cards too quickly without watching properly which card dummy has put his hands on.

In this case, declarer simply did not bother looking to see what card dummy had put in the played position. Presumably dummy normally follows declarer's designations acurately and declarer had no reason to think there would be a problem. When RHO played a heart, declarer had time to think "if he's got no diamonds then this isn't making" . There was certainly time for thought between dummy's card being played and declarer taking any action that revealed the unintended designation.

When I started directing, we still had spoken bidding and the common "interpretation" of "without pause for thought" was "in the same breath", certainly the "pause for thought" started when the call or designation was spoken.

It is only players' inability to pay attention to the use of bidding box cards, and the desire to avoid "non-bridge" results, that has lead to the "obvious" "interpretation" that "pause for thought" starts some time later than when the inadvertent action is made.