[blml] Law 25A

[Rui Marques]

If the director judges that South took the bidding card of Pass intending to
take the 3NT, then we can rule as inadvertent. Seems strange. At the moment
he passed, it seems from a distance that South intended to pull that card
from the box... Slip of fingers, inadvertent, slip of mind, "Im very sorry
but...". I would tend to judge as not inadvertent. But the TD at the table
is the one that has to form the opinion about it, about the reasons why
Southpicked the wrong card. Normally I ask something like "Yes, you wanted
to be in game of course, but you passed because it seemed like it was
already 3NT the contract?" Or some variations of it. Usually this
establishes a reply like "of course, I would never pass if I had noticed it
was only 2NT", and this means of course intentional.

Rui Marques

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]
On Behalf Of Sven Pran
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 10:50 AM
To: blml
Subject: [blml] Law 25A

I was consulted (on telephone) on a case on which I would like to hear
opinions on blml, preferably from those that feel themselves competent on
the application of law 25A:

The auction: (North dealer, bid boxes in use, no screens)
N    E    S    W
1C - P - 1D - P
1H - P - 2S - P
2NT - P - P - P

Immediately after West's final pass, before any activity associated with the
opening lead, South exclaims: "God, what have I done" or words to that
effect.

Facts (undisputed) as established by the Director: 2S is forcing to game
(4th suit), there is no doubt that South intended to bid game, i.e. 3NT, and
that his pass as such was "unintended". (I am deliberately avoiding the word
"inadvertent" here).

Question: Shall South be permitted a Law 25A substitution of 3NT for his
last pass?

"Disturbing" circumstances: 

We have since long practiced a general (but not necessarily absolute) rule
in Norway that for a call to be considered inadvertent its bid card should
normally "come" from the same compartment in the bid box as the bid card for
the intended call. (Pass, Double and Redouble come from one compartment, all
bids come from a different compartment). 

I believe I have heard that Law 25B2(b)(2) was introduced because of a
situation where a player was so disappointed by his partner's response to a
Blackwood asking bid that he lost all hopes of slam but "inadvertently"
passed instead of correcting the contract to 5 in the agreed trumps. At that
time his mistake shall have been ruled not to qualify for a correction under
Law 25A?

Comments anybody? (I am deliberately not disclosing my own opinion or the
ruling actually made except that they do agree).

Regards Sven


_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml at amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml