[blml] By the pricking of my thumbs

[Ed Reppert]

On Mar 4, 2007, at 8:44 AM, Roger Pewick wrote:

> 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.

I hear the deep voice of the bullfrog. Sorry Roger, but this won't  
wash. That the contention *are* supported by law has already been  
demonstrated. Try again.