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

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Guthrie
............
> 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".)
> 
> [nige1]
> I think it is simpler and fairer for the law to penalize slips of the
> hand the same way as it penalizes slips of the mind. Hence I dislike
> 25A, which seems to reward economy with the truth. Moreover, I hate
> the EBU interpretation that is the subject of this thread.
> 
> Case A.
> You play a variable notrump. You are not vulnerable, but you think you
> are vulnerable and open 1N with a balanced 17 HCP. Partner (correctly)
> announces "12-14". 25A is likely to save you if you call the director
> and claim inadvertence.

No I don't think so. TD should find the probable reason that he has mistaken
the zone.

> 
> Case B.
> RHO opens 1D. With your 10 HCP and 5 spades, you intend to overcall 1S
> but inadvertently bid 1N. Partner announces "15-18". Under EBU
> regulations, this announcement is illegal but it is a common kind if
> mistake and normally escapes without penalty. Here however it wakes
> you up to your mechanical error. How should the director rule now?

If he finds that it most likely was a pure mechanical error he should allow
a Law 25A correction of the call.
 
> Stupid and unnecessary regulations like 25A will always spawn such
> difficult scenarios. The honest player will be penalized. The
> dishonest or self-deluding secretary bird may be rewarded.

Rather than discussing your anticipation (which I deleted) I will post a
different example: The player who says (spoken auction); "One Diamond eh I
mean one heart".

Nobody around the table has the least doubt that it was a plain slip of the
tongue. Now, if you want to rule that he has bid one diamond I shall accept
your position (without agreeing with it), but if you accept that this guy
shall be permitted to having bid one heart and nothing else I challenge you
to make up Law 25A in a proper way to cater for that situation as you
apparently do not like the current text in that law.

Remember that Law 25A accepts "slip of the tongue" but not "slip of the
mind", so the Director must verify that there probably was a true "slip of
the tongue". One way of trying that is to determine if the player seems to
having possibly reconsidered his call after he became aware of his alleged
mistake.

My almost thirty years of TD experience tells me that Law 25A very seldom
causes any difficulty.

Regards Sven