[blml] Law 25A

[Sven Pran]

> To: Sven Pran
> >> > .............
> >> > 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.
> >
> > I think you should find the following minutes (and particular #7) from
> > WBFLC
> > Maastricht 2000 relevant?
> >
> > 6 The Committee examined a statement that "When bidding boxes are in use
> > the
> > attempt to correct an inadvertent call (Law 25A) must follow
> > instantaneously
> > upon the player's discovery of his mistake. (Should LHO have meanwhile
> > made
> > a call over the player's first call Laws 25A, 21B and 16C apply)."  The
> > Committee finds this principle acceptable and urges regulating
> authorities
> > to incorporate it (or an alternative statement) in their tournament
> > regulations. Directors are recommended, where there is no regulation to
> > cover the point, to follow the above guidelines.
> >
> > 7 The Committee discussed the word 'inadvertent' used in the laws. A
> guest
> > suggested that an action is inadvertent if, at the time the player makes
> > it,
> > he decides one course of action but actually does something else through
> > misadventure in speaking, writing or selecting a bidding card. Mr.
> Wignall
> > made observation that the etymology of the word indicates a turning away
> > of
> > the mind, so that the action does not occur as a conscious process of
> the
> > mind.
> >
> > The Committee acquiesced in the views expressed.
> >
> > Regards Sven
> 
> I don't know what comment I should make about #7.  You said it is relevant
> as to ascertaining whether the player fulfilled the specification wrt the
> window of opportunity.  I don't get it.

After having allowed a Law 25A correction of a call (according to the
circumstances around the alleged inadvertent call) we evaluate the situation
again when all cards are known. The main question at that time is this:

Did the alleged inadvertent call give any bridge information relevant to the
actual hand?

If the answer to this question is "yes" we consider reversing the Law 25A
ruling and award an adjusted score on the board.

If the alleged inadvertent call did not convey any bridge information
relevant to that hand we understand minute #7 to confirm that the call was
indeed inadvertent.

Sven