Re: Law 25A
Sinot Martin <Martin.Sinot <at> Micronas.com>
2006-09-06 12:47:39 GMT
The Dutch interpretation of Law 25A when using bidding boxes is that it
is meant to correct mechanical errors: the hand does something different
than the mind. This is usually caused by things like sticking bidding
cards, or grabbing the card next to the intended one. It falls to the TD
to determine whether such is the case. When the intended call and the
actual call come from different compartments of the box, the TD usually
does not allow the change. But there are exceptions, such as pulling a
"green" Stop card before making a jump bid. Anyway, the TD should take
that person from the table and question him/her about the reason of the
"mispull" and possibly look at the hand for additional information
before making a decision.
For this case I would say that at the moment of his pass, South thought
for some reason that he was passing 3NT, and just a little too late
found out that that still had to be bid. Proof of that would be the
compartment the pass comes from, and also his exclamation, which to me
shows that he really wanted to pass at the time of his mistake, probably
thinking that the contract was already 3NT. I would not allow the
change. This would be a 25B case if West hadn't passed already.
This is similar to someone passing an ace-asking answer who forgets to
bid the agreed trump indeed; there can be no doubt that that person does
not want to play the ace-asking answer suit, but he/she had a momentary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-bounces <at> amsterdamned.org
[mailto:blml-bounces <at> amsterdamned.org]
> On Behalf Of Sven Pran
> Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 11:50
> To: blml
> Subject: [blml] Law 25A
> I was consulted (on telephone) on a case on which I would like to hear
> opinions on blml, preferably from those that feel themselves competent
> the application of law 25A:
> The auction: (North dealer, bid boxes in use, no screens)
> N E S W
> 1C - P - 1D - P
> 1H - P - 2S - P
> 2NT - P - P - P
> Immediately after West's final pass, before any activity associated
> opening lead, South exclaims: "God, what have I done" or words to that
> Facts (undisputed) as established by the Director: 2S is forcing to
> (4th suit), there is no doubt that South intended to bid game, i.e.
> that his pass as such was "unintended". (I am deliberately avoiding
> "inadvertent" here).
> Question: Shall South be permitted a Law 25A substitution of 3NT for
> last pass?
> "Disturbing" circumstances:
> We have since long practiced a general (but not necessarily absolute)
> in Norway that for a call to be considered inadvertent its bid card
> normally "come" from the same compartment in the bid box as the bid
> the intended call. (Pass, Double and Redouble come from one
> bids come from a different compartment).
> I believe I have heard that Law 25B2(b)(2) was introduced because of a
> situation where a player was so disappointed by his partner's response
> Blackwood asking bid that he lost all hopes of slam but
> passed instead of correcting the contract to 5 in the agreed trumps.
> time his mistake shall have been ruled not to qualify for a correction
> Law 25A?
> Comments anybody? (I am deliberately not disclosing my own opinion or
> ruling actually made except that they do agree).
> Regards Sven
> blml mailing list
> blml <at> amsterdamned.org
blml mailing list
blml <at> amsterdamned.org