More Help Please - Unintended Calls
I am hoping I haven't been applying Law25 wrong. In both cases below I have allowed a replacement under 25 A (1). My question is in what circumstances should I be applying and not applying Law 25 A (2) and refusing a changed call on the basis of "loss of concentration."
In below hand, East Opens 1D-Pass-1H and North bids 3D and immediately calls Director claiming Unintended call:
|
AQJ 53 5 AKQT873 |
||
|
9762 KJT96 J3 J2 |
KT4 A7 AKQ98 964 |
|
|
853 Q842 T7642 5 |
I rule under Law 25A (1) that this was not the call he intended and allow a 3C replacement.
The other example is a very typical occurrence, following a 4C or 4NT asking sequence when the responder gives the incorrect response (e.g shows 1 ace instead of 2). Again if they identify it straight away I allow them to replace the call.
Latest Posts on this Thread
- GILES HANCOCK12 Aug 2018 at 08:59PM
Hi Paul
I agree on the first example, although I guess 3D as a jump cue could be a possible bid, but hey ...
I disagree about allowing players to change a response to an ace-asking bid.
Regards, Giles
- Dougal WATSON09 Sep 2018 at 11:48AM
I'd agree.
3D, with those seven clubs, fits the description of an unintended call well: "In applying this Law, the Director must still be satisfied that the Player never had it in his / her mind to take the action he / she took".
Making the wrong ace / keycard response is more of a mistake, and the prompt replacement of the bid is not really relevant: "The acid test is the Player’s incontrovertible intention, not the speed of the change".
Of course the manual also provides the over-riding advice that "It is really only the Director who attends the table who can ever be in a position to judge when Law 25A is applicable".
You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.
Click here to log in.
