[pran]

 Cyberyeti, on 2015-April-19, 07:33, said:

There are times I wish we could do this.

I don't believe S at all and would look at a penalty.

Worth checking methods, if NS play a forced redouble mechanism, you'll finish in 2♣x-6.

Funnily enough I genuinely perpetrated something not dissimilar in the credibility stakes last night. Hearts agreed, partner bids 4♠ blackwood, I bid 5♣(1/4) or at least I thought I did, I actually bid 4N (0/3) and stared off into space, partner went into a long tank and when I looked down 60-90 seconds later discovered my mistake before partner (who'd worked out from the previous auction I couldn't have 0/3) had bid. Man wheeled in, simple question, did I indicate I wanted to change my bid without pause for thought as soon as I noticed what I'd actually bid ?

Why that question?
You cannot change your call once partner has subsequently called, and any indication from you that you did not intend your call is just unauthorized information to your partner.

[aguahombre]

 pran, on 2015-April-19, 08:17, said:

Why that question?
You cannot change your call once partner has subsequently called, and any indication from you that you did not intend your call is just unauthorized information to your partner.

Cyber states partner has NOT subequently called. I suspect he asked the question because he wanted an answer based on the conditions he provided -- not on a premise which did not exist.

[blackshoe]

In this case, SB's partner hasn't called yet. Lamford makes a good case for a 25A change in post #18, and then says he wouldn't allow a correction under that law. Why not, Paul? What part of 25A is not satisfied?

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2015-April-19, 09:11, said:

In this case, SB's partner hasn't called yet. Lamford makes a good case for a 25A change in post #18, and then says he wouldn't allow a correction under that law. Why not, Paul? What part of 25A is not satisfied?

The part about 1NT being unintended. Just because SB used the word "unintended" or equivalent statement doesn't make his characterization of 1NT as unintended correct.

[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2015-April-19, 09:09, said:

Cyber states partner has NOT subequently called. I suspect he asked the question because he wanted an answer based on the conditions he provided -- not on a premise which did not exist.

Sorry, I see now that I misread his post where he stated "before" his partner had bid and read it as if his partner had (already) bid.

My mistake.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2015-April-19, 09:11, said:

In this case, SB's partner hasn't called yet. Lamford makes a good case for a 25A change in post #18, and then says he wouldn't allow a correction under that law. Why not, Paul? What part of 25A is not satisfied?

I would say all of it.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2015-April-19, 09:11, said:

What part of 25A is not satisfied?

On EBU County Director courses, it was recommended that a TD should establish, at the moment a player reached for a bidding card, which card he "intended" to select. Essentially, the fingerfehler can be changed (although it cannot be in chess), and the slip of the tongue with spoken bids (or, I suppose, a lapsus calami with written bids) can also be changed. This is already a generous concession to the bidder, not available to him in the play. If we adopt the approach of Trinidad (or his henchman PeterAlan) we are going too far.

[PeterAlan]

 lamford, on 2015-April-20, 07:33, said:

.... If we adopt the approach of Trinidad (or his henchman PeterAlan) we are going too far.

It's your remarks that are going too far, lamford. To date, essentially all I have done is to quote the current guidance to EBU TDs as set out in the White Book - guidance to which you appeared to me to have paid insufficient attention before you made some of your earlier assertions. I have made no suggestion about going any further than that guidance.

[Vampyr]

I think that the meaning of L25A can be understood if we think of the old 25B2(b)(2).

Under this (1997) law you were allowed to change a bid based on a slip of the brain and play on for Average Minus. This law was widely ridiculed and did not make in into the 2007 version.

It is clear that the simple omission of this law does not suddenly mean that brain-slips can be corrected with no penalty.

I think that most of Trinidad's examples can be dismissed because there is a reason the card was removed from the box. It was, in fact, selected. Similarly in Lamford's example, the person was thinking about 1NT and selected that card. He may not have wanted the card, but he did select it. I think that this distinction is what is causing some people a problem -- intention refers to the act of using a bidding card, not to choosing a preferred call.

In Lamford's case especially, the "mistaken" card was pulled from the other section of the box; so this cannot conceivably be a case of "missing" the intended card.

[PeterAlan]

 Vampyr, on 2015-April-20, 08:53, said:

I think that the meaning of L25A can be understood if we think of the old 25B2(b)(2).

I think that the interpretation of the Law has to be based on what it says now, not on a part of a previous version that was repealed 8 years ago and that many current TDs are unaware of.

 Vampyr, on 2015-April-20, 08:53, said:

... intention refers to the act of using a bidding card, not to choosing a preferred call.

What is the evidence for this assertion?

[lamford]

 PeterAlan, on 2015-April-20, 07:44, said:

It's your remarks that are going too far, lamford. To date, essentially all I have done is to quote the current guidance to EBU TDs as set out in the White Book - guidance to which you appeared to me to have paid insufficient attention before you made some of your earlier assertions. I have made no suggestion about going any further than that guidance.

I suggest that you have paid insufficient attention to the assertions made by others. You quoted, in another thread, the following:

lamford said:

The interpretation in England seems to be that if the brain tells the hand to select a bidding card, that is not "unintended", regardless of the original intent.

You disagreed with the above claim, quoting in seeming refutation: Assuming bidding boxes, the most important question is “What did you intend to call at the moment your hand reached out to the bidding box?”

The process of bidding is "the brain telling the hand to select a bidding card from the bidding box". The hand cannot perform that task without a stimulus from the brain. Occasionally, the message does not get through, and the brain tells the hand to select 2NT, but the hand takes out the 1NT card. That is inadvertent, and unintended. If, in this example, SB "intended" to withdraw the 1NT bid from the bidding box, whether or not that was the call he wished to make, then the call is not unintended.

[lamford]

 Trinidad, on 2015-April-18, 08:44, said:

South said that he wanted to "change his call to pass". It is highly unlikely that a South player who never meant to call 1NT would use these words.

You clearly do have some great investigative skills. South would, no doubt, have instead asked the TD to change the inadvertent call he did not make from 1NT to Pass. I can now see why the Dutch have never produced a Poirot ...

[PeterAlan]

 lamford, on 2015-April-20, 11:03, said:

The process of bidding is "the brain telling the hand to select a bidding card from the bidding box". The hand cannot perform that task without a stimulus from the brain. Occasionally, the message does not get through, and the brain tells the hand to select 2NT, but the hand takes out the 1NT card. That is inadvertent, and unintended.

I agree with this. However, it does not appear to be consistent with your earlier:

 lamford, on 2015-April-13, 05:19, said:

The interpretation in England seems to be that if the brain tells the hand to select a bidding card, that is not "unintended", regardless of the original intent.

the statement with which I took issue.

I've no wish to over-complicate any of this: it seems to me that the guidance boils down to answering the two questions: "What did you intend to call?" and "What did you actually call?"

I have given no view whatsoever on your SB example above, and would not quarrel with your last sentence as it stands:

 lamford, on 2015-April-20, 11:03, said:

If, in this example, SB "intended" to withdraw the 1NT bid from the bidding box, whether or not that was the call he wished to make, then the call is not unintended.

It would be a matter of determining whether or not SB "intended" to withdraw the 1NT bid from the box, notwithstanding his subsequent statement that this was not the call he wished to make (there's no problem if it was); as I said in the other thread, the TD's decision in such needs to be more nuanced than the simplistic 'if the brain tells the hand to select a bidding card, that is not "unintended", regardless of the original intent.' Your first statement above suggests to me that you think so too.

However, that is based on your premise that 'SB [may have] "intended" to withdraw the 1NT bid from the bidding box, whether or not that was the call he wished to make.' If I've understood you correctly, both you and Vampyr are attempting to distinguish between "call" in the sense of which "bid, double, redouble or pass" the player decides upon, and the manifestation of that decision by (here) the withdrawal of a bidding card from the box, and are emphasising the possibility that the player may have decided to make one call, but nevertheless "intended" his or her withdrawal of a different card from the box. Whilst I'm quite prepared to admit that this may be possible, it seems to me to be an unnecessary over-complication in most cases in practice.

Finally, my comment that "your remarks ... are going too far" was partly driven by your dismissive characterisation of me as Trinidad's "henchman".

[lamford]

 PeterAlan, on 2015-April-20, 17:16, said:

Finally, my comment that "your remarks ... are going too far" was partly driven by your dismissive characterisation of me as Trinidad's "henchman".

That was a little tongue-in-cheek, and I apologise.

[lamford]

 PeterAlan, on 2015-April-20, 17:16, said:

If I've understood you correctly, both you and Vampyr are attempting to distinguish between "call" in the sense of which "bid, double, redouble or pass" the player decides upon, and the manifestation of that decision by (here) the withdrawal of a bidding card from the box, and are emphasising the possibility that the player may have decided to make one call, but nevertheless "intended" his or her withdrawal of a different card from the box. Whilst I'm quite prepared to admit that this may be possible, it seems to me to be an unnecessary over-complication in most cases in practice.

I cannot speak for Vampyr - who is currently in the USA anyway - but from my point of view I also do not think it is complicated. If the person reached for the 1NT bid, and pulled out the 1NT bid, then that is his "intended" call. I don't really wear this WBFLC "turning away of the mind" hogwash, to be honest. But then there are plenty of WBFLC minutes that are even worse.

[PeterAlan]

Thank you for your apology, lamford - no real offence taken. This has probably gone as far as it sensibly can - I don't see that any further elaboration of our respective positions is going to provide any further illumination! I would say, though, that I'm just giving my understanding of what the current Law 25A and the guidance on it actually says and means, and not expressing a view on whether that is what we would have in a better world. Whilst the WBFLC minute remains in force, and our attention is drawn to it by L&EC in the White Book, I don't regard myself as able to ignore it, but the overall result is certainly generous to those who regard themselves as having made unintended calls.

PS: On a detail of your hypothetical SB case, one clarification I would look for is whether North had announced SB's call as "12-14" before West's double and, if so, what and when SB's reaction to the announcement had been.

[lamford]

 PeterAlan, on 2015-April-20, 18:34, said:

PS: On a detail of your hypothetical SB case, one clarification I would look for is whether North had announced SB's call as "12-14" before West's double and, if so, what and when SB's reaction to the announcement had been.

The 1NT would have been announced, West would have doubled fairly quickly, and SB would have immediately "blurted out" that he did not "intend" to open 1NT, in his interpretation of 25A. I would be surprised if there were many TDs in the world who allow South to change his call, even though I could quite imagine someone having genuinely decided to Pass carelessly picking the 1NT card - a sort of dyslexic transposition. However it is not the same as typing "teh" or "adn". The 1NT bid might meet one general meaning of "unintended" but not the one I think that should be applied.

[PeterAlan]

I for one would take some convincing that SB had originally intended to Pass, and I would not expect to be over-ruled by an Appeal Committee if I decided that he didn't.

[Vampyr]

 PeterAlan, on 2015-April-20, 09:02, said:

I think that the interpretation of the Law has to be based on what it says now, not on a part of a previous version that was repealed 8 years ago and that many current TDs are unaware of.

Not really. The point is that a provision had been made for calls based on mental lapses, and that provision had been removed. If the intention had been that changes of calls based on momentary mental lapses, inattention etc were to be permitted entirely (instead of being permitted but scoring a maximum of 30%) the relevant law would have been changed, not deleted in its entirety.

All experienced TDs know of the former 25B2(b)(2) but it wouldn't really matter if they didn't.

[Trinidad]

 lamford, on 2015-April-20, 07:33, said:

On EBU County Director courses, it was recommended that a TD should establish, at the moment a player reached for a bidding card, which card he "intended" to select.

If that would be true, the EBU county director course is wrong. The criterion is not which card he intended to select. The criterion is which call he intended to select. Read the lawbook.

 lamford, on 2015-April-20, 07:33, said:

On EBU County Director courses, it was recommended that a TD should establish, at the moment a player reached for a bidding card, which card he "intended" to select. Essentially, the fingerfehler can be changed (although it cannot be in chess), and the slip of the tongue with spoken bids (or, I suppose, a lapsus calami with written bids) can also be changed. This is already a generous concession to the bidder, not available to him in the play. If we adopt the approach of Trinidad (or his henchman PeterAlan) we are going too far.

What rules is bridge played under? I thought it was under the 2007 laws of bridge. There is no other way to read the 2007 laws (and the intent of the lawmakers is clear from the 2000 WBFLC minutes) then that a call that was not intended can be corrected.

But if you don't want bridge to be played under the 2007 laws, then just say so. I don't have a problem with that. And then we are back where UDCADenny started: with a TD who doesn't want to follow the laws. But don't claim that the lawbook says something else then it does.

Rik