jhenrikj

Is there anything written down from WBF LC or any AC where we can find this? Edit I can answer my own question... And since the information given was authorised from north to south, we can't give any penalty to north and we can't use 12A1 either. Who said Crime doesn't pay ;=)

Jallerton, your approach results in some strange situations.... 1NT - 2NT (unintended, intended call was 2♠). Now south, because of the lack of alert on 2NT (which of course not should be alerted), finds out he actually bid 2NT and want to change. By doing absolutely nothing wrong, north has now denied south to change his unintended call. This means that in every situation where an unintended call is alerted where the intended call should not have been or the other way around we can't change according to 25A. So, shortly 25A applies only when both the unintended call and the intended is either natural or artificial. I can't find any support for that in the laws. I think that we should allow the change, we use 12A1 if necessary (perhaps even giving a split score where EW gets the score that would probably be if north bids over 3D, we give NS the actual score at the table), and we give north a PP. This way it is only north's comment that is punished, we do not as well punish south for making a misspull as we do if we also force him to bid 3♦. North's comment is the only infraction and we should look at that separately not mixing it with the misspull.

David, what do you think of the other two questions I've asked. First, does 25A still apply? and if NS get a beter score becuse of north's comment than they probably would have otherwise, can we use 12A1 to change the score?

Of course it should be a PP, not a DP. But the affect of his score still remains the same ;=)

Then the next question arises which is perhaps more interesting. We all agree that north has broken the rules by making his comment. Now we allow south to change his unintended call and the bidding goes 2C - 2D; 2NT - 3C(stayman); 3Sp - 4Sp. 4Sp making ten tricks. If north had not said anything and instead bid 3NT (before south realises his mistake) that would have ended the auction. 3NT making 9 tricks. Should we now correct the score according to 12A1 to 3NT instead of 4Sp because EW was damaged by north breaking the rules?

I totally agree with iviehoff. North should receive a severe PP (changed from DP) (-50% or something like that). The reason I asked the question is that several TD's in Sweden claims that Law 16 should apply making it impossible for south to realise his mistake before north bids. I personally can't accept that interpretation and it seems like at least I'm not alone :) Thx

So the fact that south has recieved UI because of north's comment does not disallow him to realise that he has taken the wrong bidding card out of the box? Without the comment he probably would have not.

North opens 2♣(forcing strong) south intends to bid 2♦ wich is the only allowed response in their system but bids 3♦ by mistake. North now says "What are you doing?" South looks down and sees 3♦ on the table, is he allowed to change his unintended call now according to 25A?