[Pict]

Vampyr, on Sep 22 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

Pict, on Sep 22 2010, 06:55 PM, said:

In which case it would appear the pause for thought phrase adds nothing to the Law (would better have been omitted) and Pran was right to ignore it, and concentrate on correction 'in time'.

Is that what you are implying?

Not quite. Because the "time" could be spent thinking "oh, shi t, I forgot the system -- that bid is not correct". This, obviously, is not legal. It does require a bit of mind-reading if a player chooses to lie, but there must be a reaction of genuine surprise -- eg what the %$!@ is that bid doing on the table in front of me? In practice there may still be a pause if the player doesn't know what he is supposed to do about it, and no action may be taken anyway, because I would think that Mr. Burn's misapprehension is fairly common.

OK so we have reasoned away 'pause for thought' and replaced it with 'did you mean to make the bid'.

Actually that's fine by me. I would generally prefer openness about things in the Laws that we want to de-emphasise or reinterpret, but I understand it's an imperfect world where transparency can create controversy and muddling through feels more comfortable.

[pran]

Pict, on Sep 22 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

pran, on Sep 22 2010, 11:47 AM, said:

And as I have stated several times: The very first clause in Law 25A1:
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.
makes it clear that the important condition is for the Director to be convinced the first call was inadvertent, not how or when the player became aware of his mistake (except of course that it must have been in time)

The difficulty I would have with reading 25A1 as Pran suggests, is the phrase 'without pause for thought'.

If I mentally walk through partner alerting, my wondering what he is talking about, looking at the table, thinking whoops, I'd struggle to persuade myself on a basis of unaided logic that I had not paused for thought.

So I think that despite what Pran argues, we should have a written statement of guidance, so that issues of Law 73 and pause for thought can be set aside and Law 25 can be applied as the authorities intend (if indeed this is what they intend).

Such guidance has been made long ago (first time I came across it was in the Danish commented law book issued in 1980 if I remember correct): "Pause for thought" is to be "measured" from the moment the player becomes aware of his mistake until he indicates that his call was not what he intended. (It is not required at that time that he indicates what call he actually intended.) And this period may even stretch along several seconds if it is apparent that his "pause" is not for thought, that is thought to decide on an alternative call.

The important judgement required by the Director is whether the call was really inadvertent or if the player in fact did change his mind.

Once the Director is convinced that the original call was inadvertent he should allow a law 25A change of the call (except when the player's partner has made a subsequent call).

[pran]

Vampyr, on Sep 22 2010, 07:02 PM, said:

Not quite. Because the "time" could be spent thinking "oh, shi t, I forgot the system -- that bid is not correct". This, obviously, is not legal.

That would indeed not have been an inadvertent call.

Why not?

The player apparently intended the call he made when he made it because he had forgotten his system agreements.

Vampyr, on Sep 22 2010, 07:02 PM, said:

It does require a bit of mind-reading if a player chooses to lie, but there must be a reaction of genuine surprise -- eg what the %$!@ is that bid doing on the table in front of me?

Precisely.

[pran]

Pict, on Sep 22 2010, 07:19 PM, said:

OK so we have reasoned away 'pause for thought' and replaced it with 'did you mean to make the bid'.

Actually that's fine by me. I would generally prefer openness about things in the Laws that we want to de-emphasise or reinterpret, but I understand it's an imperfect world where transparency can create controversy and muddling through feels more comfortable.

Isn't that precisely the meaning of the word "inadvertent"?

[Pict]

pran, on Sep 22 2010, 01:48 PM, said:

Pict, on Sep 22 2010, 07:19 PM, said:

OK so we have reasoned away 'pause for thought' and replaced it with 'did you mean to make the bid'.

Actually that's fine by me. I would generally prefer openness about things in the Laws that we want to de-emphasise or reinterpret, but I understand it's an imperfect world where transparency can create controversy and muddling through feels more comfortable.

Isn't that precisely the meaning of the word "inadvertent"?

Pran

I'll do you the courtesy of replying.

It's easy to see, historically, how bid correction worked.

I say "One club, no I mean One spade". Minimal punctuation implying no time spent thinking. No problem with people's obsessions about how far things are apart in the 'bidding box'.

But now you, experienced TDs, have decided that although the words haven't changed, the requirement for immediacy has. I am allowed, competitively, to slip off into Vampyr's fantasies and awake some time later when partner says:

'You seemed a bit distrait when you bid there, my old friend. Are you sure you bid what you intended to bid. I know diamonds are not close to NT, but maybe you were thinking of the song about diamonds and friends".

As I say, this is all fine for me, because the main thing, apparently, is to have the TD do moral judgements on the players and decide from their relative state of apoplexy. So much for rules that level the playing field for all players.

[blackshoe]

That's not Vampyr's fantasy, Pict, it's yours. And it's not TDs you should be attacking, it's the lawmakers — but this is not the place for that (or for the other, for that matter).

[Pict]

blackshoe, on Sep 22 2010, 04:43 PM, said:

That's not Vampyr's fantasy, Pict, it's yours. And it's not TDs you should be attacking, it's the lawmakers — but this is not the place for that (or for the other, for that matter).

Stern stuff, but you need to read back a bit to understand what you are supposed to be talking about - which you don't.

[blackshoe]

Pict, on Sep 22 2010, 05:49 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 22 2010, 04:43 PM, said:

That's not Vampyr's fantasy, Pict, it's yours. And it's not TDs you should be attacking, it's the lawmakers — but this is not the place for that (or for the other, for that matter).

Stern stuff, but you need to read back a bit to understand what you are supposed to be talking about - which you don't.

If you want to start a flame war, go do it somewhere else.

[NickRW]

Pict, on Sep 22 2010, 09:49 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 22 2010, 04:43 PM, said:

That's not Vampyr's fantasy, Pict, it's yours. And it's not TDs you should be attacking, it's the lawmakers — but this is not the place for that (or for the other, for that matter).

Stern stuff, but you need to read back a bit to understand what you are supposed to be talking about - which you don't.

Personally, I'd be quite happy to see the law changed to "no change of call allowed", just as it is (mostly) in the play of a card. If nothing else it would encourage clubs to replace their old sticky bidding boxes. However, regardless of what you think, that isn't what the current law says.

Nick

[gordontd]

pran, on Sep 22 2010, 07:48 PM, said:

Pict, on Sep 22 2010, 07:19 PM, said:

OK so we have reasoned away 'pause for thought' and replaced it with 'did you mean to make the bid'.

Actually that's fine by me. I would generally prefer openness about things in the Laws that we want to de-emphasise or reinterpret, but I understand it's an imperfect world where transparency can create controversy and muddling through feels more comfortable.

Isn't that precisely the meaning of the word "inadvertent"?

L25 uses the word "unintended" rather than "inadvertent" in the 2007 version of the Laws, I am told because of the difficulty of translating "inadvertent" into some languages.

[Vampyr]

Pict, on Sep 22 2010, 09:19 PM, said:

I know diamonds are not close to NT, but maybe you were thinking of the song about diamonds and friends".

A bid that was in any way a mental slip-up is not an inadvertant call.

Quote

TD do moral judgements on the players and decide from their relative state of apoplexy.

No, the TD will investigate, and will tend to believe a player who says the call was inadvertant, no matter what "state" they are in.

[bluejak]

Pict, on Sep 22 2010, 06:55 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Sep 22 2010, 12:50 PM, said:

Pict, on Sep 22 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

If I mentally walk through partner alerting, my wondering what he is talking about, looking at the table, thinking whoops, I'd struggle to persuade myself on a basis of unaided logic that I had not paused for thought.

Yes, and before partner's call you may have been thinking about what colour your girlfriend's underwear was, but the "pause for thought" described here is thought about the bid you have made. It "starts ticking" when you have noticed what bid you actually have in front of you, not when you physically make the bid.

In which case it would appear the pause for thought phrase adds nothing to the Law (would better have been omitted) and Pran was right to ignore it, and concentrate on correction 'in time'.

Is that what you are implying?

I am not sure why you think it adds nothing to the Law. You are wondering what to have for dinner, when you realise through some way or another that the call in front of you is not the one you intended. If you immediately attempt to change it you are in time: if you think and try to change it, you are not in time. That hardly seems irrelevant.

[pran]

gordontd, on Sep 23 2010, 12:37 AM, said:

pran, on Sep 22 2010, 07:48 PM, said:

Pict, on Sep 22 2010, 07:19 PM, said:

OK so we have reasoned away 'pause for thought' and replaced it with 'did you mean to make the bid'.

Actually that's fine by me. I would generally prefer openness about things in the Laws that we want to de-emphasise or reinterpret, but I understand it's an imperfect world where transparency can create controversy and muddling through feels more comfortable.

Isn't that precisely the meaning of the word "inadvertent"?

L25 uses the word "unintended" rather than "inadvertent" in the 2007 version of the Laws, I am told because of the difficulty of translating "inadvertent" into some languages.

My "Oxford" lists:
Inadvertent a. Unintentional.