[blml] Law 25A

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A


>> 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

If nothing prevented a player from correcting his inadvertent call and a 
player did not do so, once there has been the time for the TD to arrive the 
law forbids the TD ruling that the player may then correct his call [as 
provided by L25A]- without regard to intention at time the call had been 
made.

regards
roger pewick