[AndreSteff]

pran, on 2010-November-21, 12:06, said:

The opener may have intended a (weak) 2♠ opening bid all the time and tries, but fails to make his correction before partner bids.
Or his (intended) 1♠ was stretching his hand and he just hasten to signoff in 2♠, forgetting to wait for RHO to call.

If we inspect the offender's hand we might very well find a hand that is compatible with both alternatives: A weak 2♠ opening near the upper strength limit or an optimistic 1♠ opening bid with a signoff 2♠ bid to partner's round forcing bid.

Just take your pick.

In this case it is better to have the the TD apply Law 31,then to having the 'Law 25' TD telling partner that he may not use the information that opener has a hand, that is in retrospect too weak to qualify as a one level opening (and thus that he may not pass, given his earlier 2♣ call)

But that is beside the point: Foregoing Law 25 because it enables cheating is, for me, not a good reason to pick a different Law. It may well be, that the WBFLC follows your advice and changes this, but at the moment it is not obvious that we should do so.

[pran]

AndreSteff, on 2010-November-21, 13:28, said:

In this case it is better to have the the TD apply Law 31,then to having the 'Law 25' TD telling partner that he may not use the information that opener has a hand, that is in retrospect too weak to qualify as a one level opening (and thus that he may not pass, given his earlier 2♣ call)

But that is beside the point: Foregoing Law 25 because it enables cheating is, for me, not a good reason to pick a different Law. It may well be, that the WBFLC follows your advice and changes this, but at the moment it is not obvious that we should do so.

You can't have it both ways. Either you accept statements that the offender tried to change his call, but alas overlooked that he was too late, or you don't.

In (I suppose) most cases what happened will be obvious, but there are too many possibilities where you cannot decide without inspecting the offender's cards, and in fact some times you cannot decide honestly even after such inspection.

My prime argument for avoiding Law 25 all together when it is too late for a correction is not a question of possible cheating, it is to avoid problems when you simply cannot determine the facts properly, and I feel sufficient foundation for giving Law 29 precedence over Law 25 when applicable can be found in Law 74B1: (As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:) paying insufficient attention to the game.

[blackshoe]

If I ask a player why he put 2♠ on the table, and he tells me he was trying to correct an unintended call, I am disinclined to disbelieve him without some pretty solid evidence. So I will rule under Law 25 in most cases. If it later turns out he was lying to me, well, now he has deeper problems. For one thing, I have no disinclination to disbelieve a proven liar whatever he tells me, so he places all future rulings at his table in jeopardy.

Frankly, unless he says something at the table before I arrive, I expect that it will be an opponent who called, and that opponent will likely tell me "bid out of turn", because that's what it will look like to him. Unless the player who bid 2♠ now tells me he was trying to correct an unintended call, I will rule under Law 29.

Either way, the first thing to ask him is "what were you doing?"

[bluejak]

pran, on 2010-November-21, 08:53, said:

Your insult against Norway just matches your previous insults in other threads and deserves no further comment.

Oh, I don't believe it: you are the one who suggested players do this, not me. My experience of Norwegian players is that they place bidding cards correctly and I was surprised you said otherwise.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2010-November-21, 14:55, said:

If I ask a player why he put 2♠ on the table, and he tells me he was trying to correct an unintended call, I am disinclined to disbelieve him without some pretty solid evidence. So I will rule under Law 25 in most cases. If it later turns out he was lying to me, well, now he has deeper problems. For one thing, I have no disinclination to disbelieve a proven liar whatever he tells me, so he places all future rulings at his table in jeopardy.

Frankly, unless he says something at the table before I arrive, I expect that it will be an opponent who called, and that opponent will likely tell me "bid out of turn", because that's what it will look like to him. Unless the player who bid 2♠ now tells me he was trying to correct an unintended call, I will rule under Law 29.

Either way, the first thing to ask him is "what were you doing?"

When a player tells the table why he put 2S on the table this is an extraneous remark forbidden by L73B1 and he must be thus punished for doing so.

There is a footnote to L31B: **Later calls at LHO’s turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 applies.

As there are no other exceptions thus provided- does not the footnote make clear that so-termed 'changes of call' at any other time are treated as COOT?

[blackshoe]

nope.

[pran]

axman, on 2010-November-21, 23:50, said:

When a player tells the table why he put 2S on the table this is an extraneous remark forbidden by L73B1 and he must be thus punished for doing so.

There is a footnote to L31B: **Later calls at LHO’s turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 applies.

As there are no other exceptions thus provided- does not the footnote make clear that so-termed 'changes of call' at any other time are treated as COOT?

blackshoe, on 2010-November-21, 23:52, said:

nope.

Interestingly I have received this suggestion from other sources as well and tend to find it both wise and not in conflict with law:

Law 25A takes precedence over Law 29 and Law 29 takes precedence over Law 25B (except for the specific condition in the footnote to Law 31B).

[bluejak]

Very good.

But there is one major problem with that.

Either

• it is from an official source, such as the WBFLC, or your Zonal or National organisation, in which case it is to be followed within the jurisdiction of the organisation saying so, or
  
• it is from someone else and is an opinion to be followed or not

[pran]

pran, on 2010-November-22, 02:39, said:

Interestingly I have received this suggestion from other sources as well and tend to find it both wise and not in conflict with law:

Law 25A takes precedence over Law 29 and Law 29 takes precedence over Law 25B (except for the specific condition in the footnote to Law 31B).

bluejak, on 2010-November-22, 06:39, said:

Very good.

But there is one major problem with that.

Either

• it is from an official source, such as the WBFLC, or your Zonal or National organisation, in which case it is to be followed within the jurisdiction of the organisation saying so, or
  
• it is from someone else and is an opinion to be followed or not

So far it is "from someone else" and thus an opinion.
I still like it, and I still consider it not in conflict with law.