[blml] Law 25A

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A


>> On Behalf Of Roger Pewick
> .............
>> > 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.
> ...............
>> 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?
>
> It is a well established understanding of Law 25A that "pause" is to be
> measured from the moment the player discovers his mistake until he gives
> some indication that he had made an inadvertent mistake. He need not
> immediately actually name his intended call.

Not only is there no basis in law for for such a regulation, it further is 
in direct contravention of L25A.


> Thus the following scenario satisfies Law 25A:
>
> A player makes some call and LHO makes his subsequent call. Then the 
> player
> exhibits all signs of great surprise looking at the call he had made and 
> for
> instance says "OOPS!"

I point out that 'oops'  has two normal meanings at the table.  In bridge 
the most frequent occurrence is 'I did something I regret.' and second,  'I 
was doing something else but it didn't get to the table'.  The first meaning 
is far more frequent.  As such, when a player does a L25A he should never 
use 'oops' as a precursor to actually changing his call since it can suggest 
pausing for thought.


> Now the Director is (correctly) summoned,
>comes to the table and asks in
> what way he can be of help. The player tells him that he didn't intend to
> make that call. The other players at the table confirm the player's
> indication of immediate surprise and reaction.

If the call hadn't been changed before calling the TD then surely there has 
been a pause for thought, even if only to find out if it is ok to change 
without penalty which de facto it isn't ok he needs the answer to the 
question is it ok].
.
>>From this evidence the director should now allow the player Law 25A
> correction of his call. The Director must NOT at this time look at the
> players cards for instance in order to evaluate the probability of the
> player's story!
>
>
> 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.
>
> It is not a requirement that a player immediately actually changes his 
> call,
> only that he obviously never intended to make the call he actually made.

L25A says otherwise if he is to avoid penalty, if for nothing else for 
creating UI.

regards
roger pewick

> Sven