[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-November-01, 07:47, said:

I have never known any authority whatever that is in doubt as to when the pause for thought starts, and I do not believe it is controversial.

Yet this thread clearly demonstrates just such a controversy, and it's not the first time this argument has occurred in this forum (I'm pretty sure it's been less then 6 months since the last one); that's what I was referring to. I guess the difference is that you restricted your consideration to "authority". Perhaps it's unanimous among the people who make the rules, but apparently not so among the ones who are expected to apply them (or just discuss them for fun).

[bluejak]

There will always be people who do not understand the rules, but to my mind that does not make such rules controversial. For example, there are always people who believe that any agreement that they do not play is alertable.

While Law 45C4B may not have been discussed in the same way, I do not believe the pause for thought in Law 25A is controversial.

[barmar]

OK, maybe controversial is an overbid, but I think it can be characterized as "frequently misunderstood".