[jvage]

I recieved a question about law 25, just checking my response here. Assuming the other conditions are present (inadvertent, without pause for thought etc), would you allow a law 25 correction if the player admits he realized that he pulled the wrong bidding card because of partners alert/announcement (or the lack of it)?

For example say the bids were 2♣/2♦. In the jurisdiction, playing their methods, one is announced and the other alerted. You are called because the opener wants to change an inadvertent bid.

[gordontd]

jvage, on Apr 26 2010, 09:49 AM, said:

Assuming the other conditions are present (inadvertent, without pause for thought etc), would you allow a law 25 correction if the player admits he realized that he pulled the wrong bidding card because of partners alert/announcement (or the lack of it)?

Yes.

[WellSpyder]

I don't understand the question.

If the player gives a reason why he pulled the wrong bidding card, how can it be inadvertent?

[gordontd]

WellSpyder, on Apr 26 2010, 10:10 AM, said:

I don't understand the question.

If the player gives a reason why he pulled the wrong bidding card, how can it be inadvertent?

He gave a reason why he realised he'd pulled the wrong bidding card.

[WellSpyder]

gordontd, on Apr 26 2010, 04:16 AM, said:

He gave a reason why he realised he'd pulled the wrong bidding card.

Thanks, Gordon - makes sense now. I obviously read the OP to quickly.

And I agree with your answer to the original question.

[JanM]

How can it possibly be "without pause for thought" if partner's alert/announcement was what made the bidder realize s/he had made a mistake?

[TylerE]

Does "no pause for thought" start when the player becomes AWARE of what he has bid, not when he does it? E.g. partner grabs where he thinks is the 2♦ card, not the 2♣ card, plops it down and proceeds to stare off into space. Now if when he hears "ALERT!" and looks down and see's what he's bid, if he immediatly says "oh, I meant to bid 2♦", wouldn't that be an allowed correction?

[bluejak]

The pause for thought is from the moment of realisation, which in this case is when he hears the alert/announcement.

[Vampyr]

I do not believe that this situation is adequately addressed in the Laws. The first time I, as a director, encountered this scenario, I was unsure and had to phone bluejak for guidance. Some of the comments on this forum strongly suggest that a director can easily go wrong here. Why should this be the case?

The DSC missed a great opportunity when writing the first set of Laws in the internet age. Instead of carrying out the process behind closed doors, they could have invited comments and received assistance when the language was poor or the law ridiculous (I think we all know which one I mean!).

Their attitude was incredibly arrogant and not at all sympathetic to the directors who would actually need to use the book to make rulings. For example, they refused to address the DwS in the Laws, seemingly because they viewed it as some sort of battle of wills (I will not be rude and call it a pissing contest). Anyway, it turned out that the School was still gaining adherents after the new Laws were released, forcing the WBFLC to publish a refutation of it in a footnote, or interpretation, or something. I do not know exactly, because such comments are not widely disseminated and in fact their existence is not widely known, and news of them will not reach 99.999999999% of the people who need to use the Lawbook.

It's a good and also a very important thing that the top directors in the EBU and the EBl and the ACBL and so forth to learn what the laws actually mean when the wording is unclear of absent. But it is ironic that the much much larger number of volunteer playing directors, most with no training of any sort, are left to struggle on their own.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Apr 27 2010, 08:10 AM, said:

How can it possibly be "without pause for thought" if partner's alert/announcement was what made the bidder realize s/he had made a mistake?

A "pause" is not necessarily "for thought".