[blml] By the pricking of my thumbs

[Peter Eidt]

> From: "Sven Pran" 
> > On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk
> ...........
> > > > > > I opened 1S, LHO passed, and partner intended to
> > > > > > respond 1NT (which in our Symmetric Relay methods -
> > > > > > system notes emailed on request - was an artificial
> > > > > > game force relay).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > However, partner's thumb slipped and he pulled out
> > > > > > the 1S card from his bidding box instead.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I immediately called the Director, and only now did
> > > > > > partner realise his error.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > +=+ I apologize for not having followed this topic closely.
> > However, seeking to refresh my mind, may I ask whether it
> > has been settled that:
> > 
> > 1. The Director having been called Law 9B2 applies.
> > 2. When he arrives, the 1S bid on the table being insufficient,
> > the Director will apply Law 27.
> > 
> > (I have not seen it said that the offender actually changed his
> > bid before the Director arrived. I may have missed such a
> > statement when deleting numbers of messages.)
> 
> The sequence of events described was:
> 1: Offender's partner opened the auction with a 1S bid.
> 2: Offender bid 1S, insufficient and apparently (according to the
> description given) an inadvertent call where 1NT was intended.
> 3: Offender's partner immediately summoned the Director without first
> explicitly calling attention to the irregularity.
> 4: The offender now noticed his error. According to the description
> given his attitude clearly confirms that his insufficient bid was
> inadvertent.
> 
> Are you saying that for Law 25A to apply the offender should have
> changed his inadvertent call immediately when noticing his error and
> before the Director arrived?

yes, sure!
Read the law ...

> IMO this would have been a clear violation of Law 9B2, and the
> offender should not lose any of his rights under Law 25A by delaying
> his "immediate" correction of the call until the Director had arrived
> at the table? 

Offender only has rights under Law 25A, if he
changes or tries to change his call immediately.

Peter

> Or are you saying that because he became aware of his mistake from a
> subsequent action (not a call!) by his partner Law 25A is no longer
> applicable?