[barmar]

sanst, on 2017-July-31, 05:03, said:

Certainly not explicitly. The footnote is “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.”, which doesn't say anything about asking questions.
AFAIK, the only questions explicitly allowed are about a revoke, preventing that from becoming established, and those given in Law 41B and C. The change in Law 69, which allows the play to continue after a claim has been made, possibly also requires asking questions.

Why do you think "no matter how he may become aware of his error" should be interpreted differently depending on whether it's in the law text or a footnote? Either way, it includes remarks or questions by his partner, even though they violate Law 73B.

[sanst]

barmar, on 2017-July-31, 15:42, said:

Why do you think "no matter how he may become aware of his error" should be interpreted differently depending on whether it's in the law text or a footnote? Either way, it includes remarks or questions by his partner, even though they violate Law 73B.

Gordon Rainsford wrote "one of the members of the WBFLC expressed the view that the footnote explicitly permitted such questions, so L73 no longer applied to them". The footnote doesn't say anything about asking questions, so the "explicitly" is incorrect. Neither do I see anything in the laws allowing such questions. I never wrote that he correction isn't permitted, because it is, I just stated that the question isn't and that the TD should give an AS (#11 of 'Intended or Unintended Cheating')

[barmar]

Neither the old footnote nor the new wording of Law 25A allows the question, but they both allow the change of call.

Basically, the Laws giveth, and they taketh away: The player can change the unintended call, but then the TD can adjust the score and/or give a PP to the OS.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2017-August-01, 10:31, said:

Basically, the Laws giveth, and they taketh away: The player can change the unintended call, but then the TD can adjust the score and/or give a PP to the OS.

PP maybe, but I'd be interested to hear your legal justification for adjusting the score.

[sanst]

gordontd, on 2017-August-01, 13:11, said:

PP maybe, but I'd be interested to hear your legal justification for adjusting the score.

A PP would take away the advantage for the offending side, but wouldn't restore equity for the NOS. Law 12A1 give you the right to "award an adjusted score in favour of a non-offending contestant when he judges that these Laws do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed."

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2017-August-01, 13:11, said:

PP maybe, but I'd be interested to hear your legal justification for adjusting the score.

Might you use 72C? I think this should only be used when there is an infraction, such as a question, however, and would not allow you adjust when 1NT is announced as 12-14 and this causes you to realise that you intended to open 1S. The linked case where someone said "6NT?" in an enquiring manner is different. That was illegal communication, hence an infraction.