[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-12, 11:59, said:

Trinidad, on 2015-April-12, 11:18, said:

I could argue that a brain fart where you mean to bid clubs, but pull the other black suit is still unintended in the sense of Law 25A

Well, you could do, although of course you would be wrong.

Do you care to explain the difference between 'to mean' (my post) and 'to intend' (Law 25A), in this context?

I will clarify, to make my position 100% clear:

I have a 1♣ opening. I decide consciously that I want to open 1♣. I intend to open 1♣. For some reason (not including a coffee stain, thick fingers, etc.) my brain tells my hand to pull the 1♠ card out of the bidding box and put it on the table (perhaps someone else in the room just mentioned the words "one spade" and I pull the 1♠ card or my gardener passes by and I remember that I need to go and buy a new spade).

What was my intended call? 1♣
What call did I make? 1♠
Am I allowed to change my 1♠ to 1♣? Yes (provided that my partner hasn't called yet and I make my change 'without pause for thought').

Nowhere in Law 25A it is mentioned through what mechanism the unintended call was made instead of the intended call. It is important to realize that Law 25A is older than the bidding box. It was intended for spoken bidding, i.e. where your mouth says something that you didn't intend to say, not for mechanical mistakes like coffee stains on bidding cards (though it obviously extends to those as well).

Rik

[pran]

lamford, on 2015-April-13, 02:50, said:

The TD in question may well suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

If you're incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. The skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is. —David Dunning

So, I fear you are fighting a losing battle in trying to persuade this founder that he is wrong. A well-known bridge club in London plays bridge according to its own rules - you just let someone correct an insufficient bid or correct a revoke. It seems to be popular, although it is not a member of the EBU.

Good!

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-13, 03:57, said:

Do you care to explain the difference between 'to mean' (my post) and 'to intend' (Law 25A), in this context?

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. We had an initial ruling in our favour at a local club when the auction went Pass-1S-Pass-4H*-Pass. My partner correctly did not alert (at the time it was not alertable). He "intended" to bid 4S, but selected Pass, having used brain power to decide whether it was a splinter and brain power to decide if it was alertable. The TD was called by me when my partner said "I did not mean to do that", before the next person bid, and the TD consulted and ruled that he could change it to 4S. I thought this was wrong and it was not "unintended" within the meaning of the law, which I think should only be that you pulled the wrong card out. I asked the TD if I could appeal against his decision (even though it was in our favour). He said that "he was not changing it again", but eventually did adjust it to 4H-8 at the end of the evening. I was admonished for badgering the TD by the then secretary, but the final ruling was correct, so I did not bother complaining.

[Vampyr]

Lamford is correct as to the EBU position, and I honestly had no idea that other jurisdictions have much more liberal criteria than "mechanical error". I think that these other jurisdictions are in the wrong, because "unintended" does not mean "did by mistake".

[Trinidad]

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.

You seem to fail to appreciate the considerable difference between "selecting a bidding card" and "intending to make a call".

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. We had an initial ruling in our favour at a local club when the auction went Pass-1S-Pass-4H*-Pass. My partner correctly did not alert (at the time it was not alertable). He "intended" to bid 4S, but selected Pass, having used brain power to decide whether it was a splinter and brain power to decide if it was alertable. The TD was called by me when my partner said "I did not mean to do that", before the next person bid, and the TD consulted and ruled that he could change it to 4S.

In your example there is no indication whatsoever that there was ever any intent to bid 4♠ (other than what the player said), nor did you indicate how -if 4♠ was indeed the intended call- the player came to select 4♥: coffee stain (25A: change allowed), an intent to splinter (no 25A: no change allowed) or an intent to bid 4♠, but bidding 4♥ since someone said "four hearts" which made them select the 4♥ card (25A: change allowed).

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

I thought this was wrong and it was not "unintended" within the meaning of the law, which I think should only be that you pulled the wrong card out.

Do you think that the authors of this law would have meant "pull the wrong (bidding) card" when bidding was spoken at the time that this law was written?

To me that is like saying that "thou shalt not murder" is only referring to murder by fire arms because nowadays most murders are committed by fire arms and we can hardly imagine someone using his bare hands.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-13, 05:51, said:

You seem to fail to appreciate the considerable difference between "selecting a bidding card" and "intending to make a call".

....

Do you think that the authors of this law would have meant "pull the wrong (bidding) card" when bidding was spoken at the time that this law was written?

i guess you mean this in a figurative sense, and I don't know the answer. What I do know is that bidding errors cannot be corrected; only mispulls. I would be surprised to find anyone in the world who agrees with you.

[barmar]

In spoken bidding, there's the concept of a "slip of the tongue". It's the same kind of error that you can correct when you make an unintended designation during the play.

This is where the old notion that "without pause for thought" meant "in the same breath" comes from -- in the case of a verbal action, the notion that there could be any lag between taking the unintended action and becoming aware of it is unlikely. So things like "1 heart, oops I mean 1 spade" are allowed.

[nige1]

• Scrapping "mechanical error" laws would deprive us of fascinating inconclusive disputes like this about the art of mind-reading. It would be a blow to those players who rationalize mistakes as "slips of the hand". But...
• It would shorten and simplify laws and regulations. It would mean that players were no longer penalized for telling the truth. It would encourage players to take more care. It would still make for a faster more enjoyable game. To anticipate the usual quibble -- most players would be delighted to ask the director to waive the rule for the minority with genuine manual-dexterity problems.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-13, 07:50, said:

i guess you mean this in a figurative sense, and I don't know the answer.

I don't mean anything in a figurative sense. I have taken particular care to be as literal and precise as possible.

Vampyr, on 2015-April-13, 07:50, said:

What I do know is that bidding errors cannot be corrected; only mispulls.

You don't know that. You think you know that and you think wrong. Read the law book.

Quote

A. Unintended Call
1. 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.

Law 25A is extremely clear: If I intend to call 1♣, but I do call 1♠ then I can correct it (before partner has called and without pause for thought). This does not depend on the method that I need to use to communicate that call: spoken, written, bidding box, electronic, whatsever. Nor does it depend on the mechanism that made me communicate the unintended call instead of the intended call. Other than the time limitations, the only thing that matters is intent.

The absurdity of the idea that law 25A is exclusively meant to correct misspulls should be clear once one realizes that Law 25A existed before the misspull was invented. As I said, it is as absurd as thinking that "thou shalt not murder" exclusively refers to murders with fire arms (given that fire arms didn't exist at the time the ten commandments were written).

Now, I know that you won't be happy with that because you think that TDs cannot determine intent. After all, in your opinion "TDs are not mind readers". And I will state, again, that good TDs are pretty good mind readers. After some investigation, they will be able to determine with a high degree of accuracy what the intent of the player was.

Rik

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2015-April-13, 08:47, said:

• Scrapping "mechanical error" laws would deprive us of fascinating inconclusive arguments like this about the art of mind-reading. It would be a blow to those players capable of rationalizing mistakes as "slips of the hand". But...
• It would shorten and simplify laws and regulations. It would mean that truthful players were no longer penalized. It would encourage players to take more care. It would still make for a faster more enjoyable game. To anticipate the usual quibble -- most players would be delighted to ask the director to waive the rule for the minority with genuine manual-dexterity problems.

I am certainly not against scrapping 25A. But the situation is that it is in the Law book, so we just have to deal with it.

Rik

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-13, 08:52, said:

Law 25A is extremely clear: If I intend to call 1♣, but I do call 1♠ then I can correct it (before partner has called and without pause for thought). This does not depend on the method that I need to use to communicate that call: spoken, written, bidding box, electronic, whatsever. Nor does it depend on the mechanism that made me communicate the unintended call instead of the intended call. Other than the time limitations, the only thing that matters is intent.

The issue surrounds how one interprets "intent". Many understand intent to mean what was in your mind when you took an action. If you have a "brain fart", that means the mistake was in your mind, not your hand, so it was your intended bid.

Have you ever had this happen to you? You make an ace-asking bid, and partner makes the lower response, so you decide you're not going to bid slam. But you have a brain fart, and instead of signing off in 5 of your suit, you pull the Pass card. IMHO, that's not an unintended bid, you just forgot that you needed to take an action to get to your intended contract.

Bridge is a mind sport, it's all about what goes on in the brain. A brain fart is like a foot fault in tennis.

[PeterAlan]

The EBU guidance to TDs is pretty clear:

White Book 2014 said:

8.25.2 How to determine whether Law 25A applies
If a player attempts to change a call the TD must determine whether there was a change or attempted change without pause for thought, although they will rarely decide otherwise. Usually a call for the TD or the like may be considered an attempted change.
The main problem is whether the call made is unintended. It is not recommended that a TD should look at a player’s hand except as a last resort because the TD will give information about the hand. Best is to ask the player questions. 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?”
Usually this question will elicit the information as to whether the player had made an unintended call (the call may be changed) or whether they had pulled out their originally intended call and subsequently there was a change of mind (the call may not be changed).

It also cites the following WBFLC Minute:

White Book 2014 said:

8.25.5 Law 25A and Law 45C4 (b): What is inadvertent? [WBFLC]
An action is inadvertent if, at the time the player makes it, he decides one course of action but actually does something else through misadventure in speaking, writing or selecting a bidding card.
The word [‘inadvertent’] indicates a turning away of the mind, so that the action does not occur as a conscious process of the mind.
[WBFLC minutes 2000-08-30#7]
Note Since 2007, Law 25A and Law 45C4 (b) use the word ‘unintended’: the word ‘inadvertent’ only remains in the heading of Law 47C.

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-13, 08:52, said:

The absurdity of the idea that law 25A is exclusively meant to correct misspulls should be clear once one realizes that Law 25A existed before the misspull was invented.

Indeed it did, but before bidding boxes were invented one could only correct slips of the tongue. The absurdity is in thinking that brain farts could ever be corrected, assuming the call is legal.

[billw55]

lamford, on 2015-April-13, 02:50, said:

So, I fear you are fighting a losing battle in trying to persuade this founder that he is wrong. A well-known bridge club in London plays bridge according to its own rules - you just let someone correct an insufficient bid or correct a revoke. It seems to be popular, although it is not a member of the EBU.

Indeed, in both cases I suspect the proprietor knows quite well that their policy differs from the laws. They have just made a choice to run their club differently.

[Vampyr]

I do not see how a person can say that a call reached for and made is "inadvertent". I am not a big fan of this law, but would not be a fan of Trinidad's imagined law either, because you would still have to determine on what basis the player changed his mind. It seems that there could be endless shades of grey. No changes of mind is better.

[pran]

barmar, on 2015-April-13, 09:12, said:

Have you ever had this happen to you? You make an ace-asking bid, and partner makes the lower response, so you decide you're not going to bid slam. But you have a brain fart, and instead of signing off in 5 of your suit, you pull the Pass card. IMHO, that's not an unintended bid, you just forgot that you needed to take an action to get to your intended contract.

I have read (somewhere) that an occurrence of this precise scenario was the direct reason why the infamous Law 25B2b2 was introduced in the 1997 laws. Fortunately this Law was again deleted from the laws in 2007, apparently without any discussion.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2015-April-13, 15:02, said:

I have read (somewhere) that an occurrence of this precise scenario was the direct reason why the infamous Law 25B2b2 was introduced in the 1997 laws. Fortunately this Law was again deleted from the laws in 2007, apparently without any discussion.

Yeah, that law was crazy. I don't think it would have been afforded any consideration at all had it not been invented and promoted (pushed through?) by Edgar Kaplan.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-13, 08:52, said:

I don't mean anything in a figurative sense. I have taken particular care to be as literal and precise as possible.

Then it is truly a mystery why you invited speculation as to the intentions of the lawmakers with respect to bidding boxes when writing a law before bidding boxes were invented.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-13, 16:08, said:

Then it is truly a mystery why you invited speculation as to the intentions of the lawmakers with respect to bidding boxes when writing a law before bidding boxes were invented.

Because you claim that 25A is meant exclusively for misspulls.

And I say that it would be very odd that the lawmakers would have written a law to deal exclusively with misspulls before the misspull was invented.

So, we can safely conclude that your claim is wrong and that law 25A is not exclusively for misspulls.

Law 25A is, in itself, clear what it is about: intended and unintended calls. It doesn't say anything about how or why the unintended call was made: misspull, coffee stain, misclick, slip of the tongue, distraction by the waiter or a leaking roof. None of these are excluded. There is only one requirement (other than the time limits: before partner has called and 'without pause for thought'). There needs to have been an intended call.

I will give an example to clarify. You hold:
♠AQ75
♥5
♦KJT73
♣Q86

Your partner opens 1♠.

1)
You see you have a game forcing hand with four card trump support and a singleton heart. You decide to splinter with 4♥. When you pull the bid out of the box, it turns out that the 4♠ card is sticking to the 4♥ card. This is currently the most common law 25A case: a misspull. You can correct to the 4♥ bid that you intended.

2)
You see you have a game forcing hand with four card trump support and a singleton heart. You decide to splinter with 4♥. You bid 4♥ (by saying it, clicking it or by pulling a bidding card out of a box, it doesn't matter) when you realize that 4♥ is natural. Tough luck. You intended to bid 4♥ at the moment you bid 4♥. Law 25A doesn't apply.

3)
You see you have a game forcing hand with four card trump support and a singleton heart. You realize in time that you play 4♥ as natural, so you will have to decide on something else. You are thinking for a while between 2♦ (Nat., GF) and 2NT (art. GF spade raise). You decide to bid 2NT because it will be better to show the spade support immediately. Somehow, the phrase "spade support" echoes in your mind and -horrors of horrors- you bid (through whatever means) 2♠. You realize what has happened and you call the TD. You tell him truthfully that your intended call was 2NT but that the "spade support echo" made you say, pull, click, ... 2♠. The TD will rule that Law 25A applies. The 2♠ was not an intended call. "Spades" was just a phrase in your mind. The intended call was 2NT.

4)
You see you have a game forcing hand with four card trump support and a singleton heart. You realize in time that you play 4♥ as natural, so you will have to decide something else. You decide that this hand is a game forcing spade raise and you bid 2♠. Of course, that is pretty silly since, though 2♠ is a spade rais, it obviously is not game forcing. You call the TD and say that you didn't intend to bid 2♠. Instead, you intended to make a game forcing spade raise. The TD will say: "Tough luck. 'A game forcing spade raise' is not a call. So there was no intended call. That means that you cannot replace 2♠ with an intended call, because you can't replace something by something that doesn't exist.". Law 25A does not apply. (Note that it will take the player 'pause for thought' to decide that 2NT is the bid to show a GF spade raise. The pause may only be a fraction of a second, but you cannot get from "GF spade raise" to "2NT" without thinking.)

I think that we agree on 1) and 2). I think that you consider 3) and 4) absurd. You think that those do not really happen. I will tell you that I have seen both type 3) and 4) several times at the table as a TD. And in order to determine whether Law 25A applies, you need to answer one question:

What was the intended call?

In case 1) it was 4♥: Law 25A.
In case 2) it was 4♥: no Law 25A.
In case 3) it was 2NT: Law 25A.
In case 4) there was no intended call (other than perhaps the 2♠): no Law 25A.

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-14, 05:56, said:

<snip> endless waffle <snip>

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.