[blml] Alerting and Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of John Probst
> >> 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?
> 
> They are saying that the TD should be summoned and that the TD could apply
> Law 25A. Seems blindingly obvious to me and I have no idea why they feel
> the need to pronounce on it..

Law 25A says "Until his partner makes a call ..."

We have had cases where other actions from partner than the one actually
described in the law shall have the same effect as the described action. 

One example is the present laws 61B and 63B which forbid a defender to ask
his partner about a possible revoke. Law 63B was added in 1997 to capture
the situations where a defender did not actually _ask_ his partner but in
some other way called his attention to the possibility that he had revoked. 

I assume that what the Committee discussed was if any action (not only a
call) from partner shall close the time window during which Law 25A can be
applied and that the answer from the Committee was a clear "no"?

The TD must judge if the circumstances corroborate a claim that a call
actually made was indeed inadvertent, and if he finds this to be the case he
should then allow a Law 25A correction regardless of the manner in which the
player became aware of his mistake. (Of course on the conditions that
partner has not subsequently called and that the offender had no "pause for
thought".)

Regards Sven