[blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads
.............
> Dealer (North) opens 1D.  East overcalls 1H.  North then says "That's
> insufficient - I opened 1S..oh my!.. I meant 1S".  The TD is called and
> establishes that the 1D was inadvertent and allows a correction to 1S.
> 
> If we say an inadvertent bid is NOT an irregularity then 1H is now an IB
> and East is OS.  The info from the 1H bid is AI to NS and UI to W, EW
> will face penalties if 1H is not corrected to 2H.
> 
> If we say that an inadvertent bid IS an irregularity the 1H may be
> withdrawn but the information is now AI to EW and UI to NS.
> 
> The situation is similar if East reaches into the bidding box to make an
> overcall and, at that point, North notices and corrects - East now
> passes 1S.
> 
> At no point has East done anything wrong - he is acting in tempo over
> the apparent call.  To me it seems insane that anybody suggests that
> East be treated as OS (or that NS should have as AI the fact that East
> was prepared to overcall 1D but not 1S).  We *need* an inadvertent bid to
> be an irregularity in order to be fair to the opponents.

Tim has obviously found a glitch in the laws here. East can never be an
offender in this scenario but L25A does not explicitly say so. (Curiously
L25B is OK in this respect!) 

I trust that no Director has ever ruled or would ever rule against an East
in such a situation, and let us just hope that WBFLC is aware of this glitch
so that it is fixed with the coming law revisions.

Regards Sven