[blml] Alerting and Law 25A

[Eric Landau]

On Sep 11, 2007, at 9:03 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote:

> On 9/11/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au <richard.hills at immi.gov.au>  
> wrote:
>> EBU Laws and Ethics Committee minutes, 16th May 2007:
>>
>> 3.9 Player being woken up by an Alert or Announcement
>>
>> The Committee considered correspondence where a player
>> intended to open 1S but placed 1NT on the table. When
>> partner announced 12 to 14, the player realised his
>> error. The Committee noted there were other situations
>> where, for example, an alert might wake the player up.
>> The Committee confirmed that knowledge of the
>> mechanical error was authorised information; the TD
>> should be summoned who could apply Law 25A.
>>
>> Law 25A (Immediate Correction of Inadvertency):
>>
>> 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.
>
> I have no idea what this means:  "The Committee confirmed that
> knowledge of the mechanical error was authorised information; the TD
> should be summoned who could apply Law 25A."  Of course the TD
> *should* be summoned and of course he *could* apply Law 25A, but what
> are the possible outcomes and why?  What are they saying should
> happen?

I suspect that the minute merely reinforces the accepted  
interpretation of L25A that the phrase "without pause for thought"  
applies to the time at which the player realized he had placed the  
wrong bid card on the table rather than the time at which he actually  
put it there, regardless of how the fact that he had done so came to  
his attention.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net