[blml] By the pricking of my thumbs

[Roger Pewick]

>From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
>To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
>Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs
>Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:17:05 +0100
>
> > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt
>...............
> > > 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 ...
>
>Indeed.
>Law 25A:
>Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call
>for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so,
>without pause for thought. If legal, his last call stands without penalty;
>if illegal, it is subject to the applicable Law.
>And from Maastricht, August 30th 2000 - 6
>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.
>
>So "immediately" is to be "measured" from the moment offender discovers his
>mistake (within the time limit "until his partner makes a call"),

>not from
>the moment he actually made his mistake.

The contention that the circumstances allow a change of call without penalty 
are totally unsupported by law.  For the law to so allow would require a 
substantial change in law.

This assertion is supported, and emphatically so, by passage of law:

L45C1 specifies that if a defender’s card is held so that it is possible for 
the partner to have seen [it is presumed that he has seen it] and thus must 
be played.  And it is right to make such a presumption without regard as to 
whether he has seen it.

And so it is the same when a bidding card is taken from the bidding box.  It 
is possible for the player to see the card as he should be looking at the 
card as he grabs it and can be looking at it as he removes it and can be 
looking at it as he puts it on the table.  Since it not only is possible 
that the player could see his own bidding card it is most probable he has 
indeed seen it.  And it is even more right to presume he has seen it than in 
the analogous situation covered by L45C1.  And having presumed to have seen 
it there is a presumption that he is aware of his error at the point in time 
no later [if not sooner] than the card is placed on the table.

Conversely L25A provides that in order for there to be an expectation of no 
penalty when a player corrects his call- the player must indeed substitute 
it.  If the player’s election to substitute depends upon finding out whether 
or not his substitution will be penalized, or his rights,  it is de facto 
after pause for thought.

As such, it is right to presume that if a player hasn’t stated his intention 
to correct his call prior placing his bidding card on the table and then 
immediately follow through then to do so later there has been pause and such 
pause has been filled with thought.

regards
roger pewick

> > > 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.
>
>In direct violation of Law 9B2 ! ????
>
>Law 9B2:
>No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all 
>matters
>in regard to rectification and to the assessment of a penalty.
>
>See also Law 9B1(c):
>Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to
>which he might otherwise be entitled.
>
>Please do not forget that according to the facts as they have been 
>presented
>to us there is no doubt that the offender's call was inadvertent and that 
>he
>intended to bid 1NT.
>
>Sven

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t miss your chance to WIN 10 hours of private jet travel from Microsoft® 
Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0540002499mrt/direct/01/