A Sticking Point

[blackshoe]

I am even less happy with an understanding that an unintended call legally replaced by the intended call under Law 25 shall not be a basis for calculating damage when the offender became aware of his mistake under questionable circumstances.

Questionable? "by any means", says the footnote. That includes extraneous comments from partner. Yours is a very literal reading of the law. Your interpretation might be right, but it seems to me not in accord with what seems to have been the intent of the footnote.

[Vampyr]

Questionable? "by any means", says the footnote. That includes extraneous comments from partner. Yours is a very literal reading of the law. Your interpretation might be right, but it seems to me not in accord with what seems to have been the intent of the footnote.

 

Well, if you can ask (or remark, as in the OP) and still get a better score even after the PP is applied, there needs to be a massive educational campaign. But after you apply a PP for breaking L23, a PP for breaking L74C4, and presumably a large one for 72B1, you will not be left with a huge gain, I think.

 

And since the NOS are not compensated, the director must be damn sure that it was really a mispull and not a momentary mental lapse. I know directors, prominent English ones even, who think that unintentional means the latter. And this must be an even bigger problem for those who have to deal with a translation of the laws.

[lamford]

Questionable? "by any means", says the footnote. That includes extraneous comments from partner. Yours is a very literal reading of the law. Your interpretation might be right, but it seems to me not in accord with what seems to have been the intent of the footnote.

It is clear that the player is allowed to change his call. "By any means" is indeed all-embracing. However, Law 23 is equally "all-embracing", and if the player could have been aware that his question would benefit his side, then one adjusts. One does not prevent the change of call. One adjusts later if there is damage caused to the non-offenders by the remark. And I have repeated this point often enough now, and will not continue to comment on this thread. It does indeed appear to be the sticking point I predicted.

[helene_t]

I think that the point lamford is trying to highlight is that NS may do better due to North's remark, even after receiving a PP. A law-abiding North will not make such a comment, so no 25A correction will be possible.

The remark is illegal. I think it is correct that NS can get a better score by making the illegal remark. However, it is risky business since:

- If it transpires that North deliberately breaks the law for gain, he is in bigger trouble than just a PP

- If South didn't actually make a mechanic mistake, there is no gain from North's remark

- The TD may actually be less likely to believe that S made a mechanical error if it was induced by a remark by S. So it could backfire.

- If 6♠ isn't better than 6N (or 7♠ or whatever would have happened without the correction), they don't gain.

[pran]

It is clear that the player is allowed to change his call. "By any means" is indeed all-embracing. However, Law 23 is equally "all-embracing", and if the player could have been aware that his question would benefit his side, then one adjusts. One does not prevent the change of call. One adjusts later if there is damage caused to the non-offenders by the remark. And I have repeated this point often enough now, and will not continue to comment on this thread. It does indeed appear to be the sticking point I predicted.

One absolute condition for Law 23 to apply is that the remark was deliberate and not an involuntary reaction to a surprising event.

 

The obvious (?) purpose of Law 25 is to preserve natural bridge as much as possible and this goes all the way back to predecessors of bridge: Unintended actions may be reversed if this can be done without compromising the game as such.

 

Once a call may be changed under Law 25 I see no reason why the replaced unintended call shall be a factor in any question of redress to the other side.

 

I do however accept the relevance of a possible PP to a player illegally calling attention to an apparently unintended call in time for this call to be corrected.

[Vampyr]

One absolute condition for Law 23 to apply is that the remark was deliberate and not an involuntary reaction to a surprising event.

 

Luckily, no, but I still don't understand you. I have never lived in Norway, but I have lived in four countries. In every one of them an involuntary (well, it can be controlled, but let's use your word) reaction to a surprising event can be: a gasp, a widening of the eyes, a sharp intake of breath or a scream. Sometimes "Oh my god" or the like is uttered. I have never seen surprise expressed by naming a bridge contract.

 

But anyway, as I said above, emotional reactions can be suppressed when we know we have to do so. Like at the poker or bridge table, or when we are frightened and don't want to frighten a child, or in some business situations, or other times. So a natural-type expression of surprise is uncalled for, and a comment is much worse.

 

Do you think that there is a participant in this thread who: a) doesn't know by now that you think that North's remark can be involuntary, b) agrees with you, or c) thinks it makes a difference? Give it a rest.

[campboy]

One absolute condition for Law 23 to apply is that the remark was deliberate and not an involuntary reaction to a surprising event.

That's such a basic error I'm shocked that any director could make it. The whole point of Law 23 is that you don't need to decide whether the infraction was deliberate.