[blml] Law 25A

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A


> First of all thanks to Henk for bringing blml back again. I was probably 
> one
> of many who yelled "wolf" to him when I discovered than not only was blml
> silent, but also that it was completely unknown at amsterdamned.org
>
> The L25A question arose in the Norwegian championships for pairs (round 
> 69,
> board 137) and the first ruling was to not allow a change of the call. 
> (L25B
> was never in question)
>
> However CTD (one of the best we have in Norway) later got "cold feet" and
> called on me among others to discuss the situation. There was no doubt 
> that
> South intended to reach game and there seemed little (if any) reason to
> believe that he thought North had already bid 3NT. More probably South
> absentmindedly ("inadvertently") pulled the pass card rather than the
> desired 3NT card from his bid box. And it is clear from the facts that 
> there
> was no "pause for thought" when he discovered what he had done.
>
> After an extensive discussion we ended up "allowing" a Law 25A correction.

I agree that a relevant issue has to deal with the facts surrounding whether 
or not there was a pause for thought.  But a pause for thought prior to 
what?  And that is the issue of first importance.  Did the player change his 
call, or, to be more thorough, did the player change his call- or attempt to 
do so but was stopped by an outside force from completing the change?



And the facts support the conclusion that the player did not.   It is as 
simple as that.  It is one thing for a player to change his call; it is 
quite another to want to do it.  At no time did the player change his call. 
He well may have wanted to do so but did not.  Instead  he bemoaned what he 
had done.  And from that point on there had been pause for thought.  So, 
even if he had then changed his call, in the least it would not have 
fulfilled the specification provided by law  for requiring the change to 
stand [that he changed it without pause for thought].


> It is part of the history that North/South only made 8 tricks as East/West
> had an easy defense for 5 tricks (I had no knowledge of that fact during 
> our
> discussion) so the final ruling was to let North/South keep their score 
> for
> 2NT8 (based on an application of Law 82C Director's error) and award
> East/West the score for 3NT8 (the contract South wanted to be in and the
> result that would give).

imo the ruling should have been changed back to result stands;.  and the TDs 
involved with the rigamorole of going back and forth should buy the table a 
round.

regards
roger pewick

> A side point: Law 25A apparently misses some specification on when it is 
> too
> late to have an inadvertent pass corrected when this pass is the second 
> last
> pass of the three or four passes in a row that end the bidding. "Until
> partner makes a call" has no meaning here since partner is not to make
> another call.
>
> Regards Sven
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Probst [mailto:john at asimere.com]
>> Sent: 6. september 2006 19:36
>> To: Sven Pran
>> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
>> To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 10:49 AM
>> 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:
>>
>> I have occasionally allowed the intended call to be substituted. i'd have
>> to
>> have been there and given the South a pretty hard time.
>> >
>> > 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).