[campboy]

 RMB1, on 2011-September-03, 08:54, said:

I am "unhappy" that partner's alert can lead to a Law 25A change. But my "position" is that it can: because that is how I have been instructed.

This describes my attitude too. My personal opinion is that the interpretation the EBU tells me to follow is wrong, but that does not stop me following it when I am directing.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2011-September-03, 10:56, said:

This describes my attitude too. My personal opinion is that the interpretation the EBU tells me to follow is wrong, but that does not stop me following it when I am directing.

The whole approach of the Laws seems to have been to become more and more lenient with infractors. 27B is an example. Certainly in the bidding, the penalties for carelessness have become less. I think if someone opens 1S and his partner announces "12-14", as in the old example on here, then the 1S bidder will pause for thought before correcting it. He will think "why did my partner say that? Ah, I realise now, I must have misbid; I can correct that I think." If that is not pause for thought, I do not know what is, so the TD should rule that it is not "without pause for thought", and we then do not need to involve 73C. However, the WBFLC have decided that this is not regarded as pause for thought either. There is an argument that the information that you have misbid is AI because it is "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws" but then you can argue it is UI as it is "an unexpected alert (or announcement, it matters not)". I agree with jallerton that this is yet another example of inadequate Laws.

[pran]

 RMB1, on 2011-September-03, 08:54, said:

I am "unhappy" that partner's alert can lead to a Law 25A change. But my "position" is that it can: because that is how I have been instructed..

I would be happy if a Law 25A change were only permitted if there had been no help from anyone (partner or opponents). I do not like a change being permitted after an opponent asks "is that natural?"

I am not sure who interpreted "without pause for thought" as starting from when a player realised what they bid, rather than (the obvious interpretation ) from when the call was made; but I think they did the game a disservice.

Law 25A begins: Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought

It would be interesting to know how this (enhanced by me) condition can ever apply if "pause for thought" is to be considered beginning when the unintended call was made rather than when the player became aware of his mistake.

On the other side: If a player has obviously made a mistake with his call and there is no doubt that he never intended the call he actually made, why should it be disservice to the game of bridge if he is allowed to correct his call so long as his partner has not revealed anything about his own hand subsequent to the unintended call?

[AlexJonson]

It seems to me that if the law makers had wanted to say that an unintended bid could be changed so long as partner has not bid and has not alerted, they could have done just that. But they didn't.

I don't particularly like the current rules in this area, but I don't imagine they are unclear in this narrow respect.

As to pauses, in this specific case a pause for total puzzlement seems much more likely than a pause for thought.

[pran]

 AlexJonson, on 2011-September-03, 16:34, said:

It seems to me that if the law makers had wanted to say that an unintended bid could be changed so long as partner has not bid and has not alerted, they could have done just that. But they didn't.
[...]

Which implies that an unexpected alert (or missing alert) does not terminate the "tolerance" period for a player to discover his mistake?

[AlexJonson]

I generally take the law makers to have said what they mean, and to have omitted obvious potential cross-references deliberately.

If I were a regulator, despite my dislike of the current Law 25, I would not try to override it by sleight of hand via 73C.

[aguahombre]

 lamford, on 2011-September-03, 12:40, said:

The whole approach of the Laws seems to have been to become more and more lenient with infractors. 27B is an example. Certainly in the bidding, the penalties for carelessness have become less. I think if someone opens 1S and his partner announces "12-14", as in the old example on here, then the 1S bidder will pause for thought before correcting it. He will think "why did my partner say that? Ah, I realise now, I must have misbid; I can correct that I think." If that is not pause for thought, I do not know what is, so the TD should rule that it is not "without pause for thought", and we then do not need to involve 73C. However, the WBFLC have decided that this is not regarded as pause for thought either.

There must be some kind of thinking involved when a person realizes he pulled the wrong card. Lamford has pointed out that "pause for thought" is ambiguous; the TD (or the players, if they believe it was a mispull) is/are actually deciding what the thinking was about.

It is possible for the 1S opener to be thinking as Lamford states (replace unintended bid); it is also possible that opener with 5-3-3-2 and in that range would realize he should have opened 1NT (intended bid, not replaceable).

I don't know how to reword "pause for thought" to solve this apparent discrepancy; would rather just trust that the TD's can work out whether the bid was intended or not.

[gordontd]

I've just seen the Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Koningshof on 18th October 2011.

They include the following:

Quote

The committee confirmed once again that if a player’s attention is diverted as he makes an unintended call the ‘pause for thought’ should be assessed from the moment when he first recognizes his error. It was decided to add to the Laws a footnote to Law 25A as follows:  
“A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error.”