[blml] Law 25A

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Sinot Martin
...............
> > Right. So the Director looks at South's hand and denies him the L25A
> > correction. The result of this is that the other three players KNOW
> that
> > South's hand is incompatible with 1D being an inadvertent mistake,
> i.e.
> > that
> > South holds a hand that would normally be opened in 1D with a probable
> > rebid
> > or at least support in hearts.
> 
> Why is that a problem? If South truthfully had told that he had overseen
> the 1D-opening, you would have had the same situation. Everybody has
> exactly the same information. But then you simply apply L27. Why should
> you now do otherwise?
> 
> Of course, the TD takes the person outside hearing distance for
> questioning, and only tells which decision he makes, but not why. It
> probably doesn't matter much, people probably guess what the person had
> anyway.

Taking a player outside hearing distance is OK for the purpose of letting
him explain his view without passing information to the other players. But
there is no way the director can look at a player's hand and then give a
ruling without "informing" the other players at the table that his ruling
was (at least partly) based upon the cards he has seen. That makes the board
impossible to be played and scored normally. Finito.

However, I have no problem with the Director examining the board after the
play and then decide if his original ruling allowing a Law 25A correction
was incorrect because of some clever deception by the offender (pretending
inadvertency when there apparently must have been a change of mind). In that
case I expect the Director to adjust the score.

The standard criterion should be: 

Did the first call carry any bridge information?

If it did we do not have an inadvertent call, if it did not then that call
was inadvertent.

And that question must be judged and answered by the Director without
looking at any cards when he shall rule whether to allow or deny a Law 25A
correction.

Regards Sven