bluejak, on 2012-July-12, 06:27, said:
So a TD should seek to establish the facts, not assume he knows them based on what people generally do.
I agree that the TD should seek to establish the facts. The problem in cases such as this (and it seems like you agree judging by your careful wording "seek to"), is that it is very difficult for the TD to establish all of the necessary relevant facts. Law 25A says:
Law 25 said:
LAW 25: LEGAL AND ILLEGAL CHANGES OF CALL
A. Unintended Call
1. 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. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.
2. No substitution of call may be made when his partner has made a subsequent call.
though we are advised to rule on the basis that Law 25A1 says something like:
"1. 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,
as soon as he realises his mistake, without pause for
further thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law."
So for a correction to be permitted, the TD needs to establish all of the following:
1. That at the point when he put his hand in the bidding box, the original call was not the call he intended to remove from the bidding box.
2. That at the point when he put his hand in the bidding box, the call he intended to remove from the bidding box was the now proposed substituted call.
3. The exact time (which I shall call time
t1) at which the player realised that he had not made his intended call.
4. The exact time (which I shall call time
t2) at which the player corrected, or attempted to correct the unintended call.
5. That there was no pause for thought between time
t1 and time
t2.
6. Whether his partner had called before time
t2.
When, as in most Law 25A cases, the correction is immediate, the TD can have a reasonable idea what the answers to questions 1 to 6 might be.
However, in cases like the one in this thread:
awm, on 2012-July-07, 21:35, said:
The 3♥ bid was undiscussed. At this point South started thinking, spending about a minute (all agreed) to decide what to do. North was looking down at her scorecard for most of this time. Just as South visibly started to reach for his Pass card, North announced that her 3♥ bid was unintentional (mechanical error) and she had meant to bid 2♥. The director was called to the table. What should the ruling be?
South and West had decided to pass regardless, so the contract will be either 2♥ or 3♥ here (unless you prescribe some split ruling).
the TD has to guess the time of variable
t1. For example, if 2
♥ was the intended call, North realised that he had actually bid 3
♥ after 50 seconds and it took a further 10 seconds for him to attempt to correct it, then a Law 25A correction is not allowed.
Even if the TD does allow a Law 25A correction at the table, then, as Campboy rightly points out, the TD would have to consider what prompted North to realise he had made an unintended call. If there is a breach of Law 73A, 73B and/or 73C, we could have the bizarre situation where North is allowed to change his call to 2
♥, the contract is played out in 2
♥ and yet the TD then has to assign an adjusted score, based on the contract being 3
♥!
As the declarer play and defence in 3
♥ may not necessarily be the same as in 2
♥ and the original poster is from ACBL-land, it is conceivable that this could end up with a split score after all!
Help
