Trinidad

The White Book is merely quoting the WBFLC minutes from 2000. And with the next revision of the laws in 2007, the WBFLC updated law 25A to make it clearer and reflect the 2000 minutes. So, this is not something English. This is something world wide. This means that your brain farts will be forgiven too. It wasn't a change. It was a clarification of something that has been in the laws for a long time (before bidding boxes were used). After bidding boxes became common, this law was misinterpreted by some in such a way that only mechanical errors could be corrected. The WBFLC didn't really change anything in 2000 or 2007. They just clarified how it was, is and will be (at least until a new revision of the laws). Rik

That question was answered by Peter Alan in his posts #32 and #44 in the other thread (my emphasis). In the 1997 laws the word 'inadvertent' was used. This was somewhat ambiguous. In 2000, the WBFLC clarified: 'inadvertent' means 'not the result of a conscious process of the mind'. So, they made it clear that Law 25A doesn't merely apply to mechanical mistakes but to any non-conscious action. In the new 2007 laws, they changed the word 'inadvertent' to 'unintended' to implement the clarification from 2000 in the new laws. With the word 'unintended' the ambiguity was removed. After all, 'intent' is the result of a conscious process. Rik

No, no, no! That is not what happened (according to South). He claims that he decided NOT to bid 1NT and that made him put the 1NT card on the table. The table info had nothing to do with it! So, either you rule based on the information given, or you stand up and say that South is a liar. Rik

Is this a hypothetical case? If so, we can assume that all the facts are correct. South never intended to open 1NT. We follow the law book, read law 25A and SB is allowed to retract his 1NT card lay down the pass card as he intended. Very simple. If this is not a hypothetical case, we will have to gather evidence. Based on the evidence, we will then judge whether we believe South' claim that he never intended to call 1NT. If we judge to believe South, we rule as in the hypothetical case. If we don't then "tough luck" for South and 1NT is his call and it stands (and all South' remarks are UI to North, etc.). I would obviously investigate a little more, but already from the minimal information that is provided we have evidence that South has "bent the truth": 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. After all, in the mind of a South player who inexplicably put the 1NT card on the table, he didn't call 1NT, he just put the 1NT card on the table. ... And there is nothing to change. So, I would tell South that I have weighted the evidence and conclude that this is not a 25A case. If South objects, he can appeal and in the AC, I will explain how I judged the facts. See, "mind reading" isn't that difficult. It is a matter of careful observation and placing oneself in the position of the person whose mind one wants to read. Rik

I think it is entirely reasonable (if not normal) to have someone return a card to the bidding box when he clearly didn't want to make a call. To me, this is the equivalent of: "What did you have on your wedding ring?" - "Three diamonds" (which sounds the same as "3♦", but is something different.) I have seen people use bidding cards to pick up dropped ash from cigarettes. I wouldn't rule that as making a call. Similarly, when someone pulls a pass card for no reason at all (your case) I wouldn't rule that he had passed. But I don't think law 25A has anything to do with that. For Law 25A to apply there needs to have been an intended call. This substitution is difficult when there is no intended call. :) The lawmakers clarified the need for an intended call even more by adding: I don't see how you can make an intended call without thinking. I assume that the player in your case will have thought before he selected the call that he did want to make. That means that it wasn't a 25A case. Rik

Oh, so now the fact that you can't bother to look at something that is right in front of your nose, and meant for you to look at, means that an opponent has concealed something? I don't think that that is what "concealed" means... As an aside, for every unknown opponent I check: basic system the section headed by "Yoohoo, opponents! This is where the odd stuff is!" (okay, usually it is phrased in more formal terms) leads and signals This rarely takes more than 5 seconds and if it does then it was good that I looked. :) Usually, I have checked the convention card, and sorted my cards, ready to play, long before my opponents have decided who deserves the blame for the previous board. :( So one could say that I didn't have anything better to do, anyway. If they would play something illegal, it will typically be on the convention card in the "Yoohoo, opponents!" section. So, it isn't necessary to make a thorough study of the convention card. A cursory glance will be more than enough. Rik

I would say that any agreements outside the mainstream belong on the convention card. I find it hard to imagine that a method would be illegal, and yet so commonly used that it shouldn't be mentioned on the convention card. That would be a very rebelious bridge club. ;) So, if someone would play an illegal convention, I expect to find it on the convention card. Rik

I really don't understand why we need the term "narcissism". After all, I am not a narcissist... ;) Rik

I don't think that politicians have a personality disorder. But now I am thinking of the average, mediocre politician. Think of school boards, city councils, etc. They are driven by ideals. They will have to campaign, but it will be limited: An article in the local newspaper, handing out flyers, discussing with the public, handing balloons to the kids, you know. I can even see that it mighht be fun to do. Neither do I think that athletes, actors or entrepreneurs have a personality disorder. They are driven by different characteristics, but that is all normal. The personality disorder lies in the hunt for success, the drive to want to be the very best. It doesn't matter whether it is in politics, sports, entertainment, or business. But when you want to be the very best, you will have to do things that normal people would not do. No normal person would want to be scrutinized for one and a half year. But a normal person would not give his whereabouts so that he can get drug tested at any given time or place. But if you want to win the Olympics, you will have to do that. I am a scientist. I like to think that I am a good scientist. But I don't have the drive to be the best scientist in the world (or the city where I live). I am a father. I like to think that I am a good father. My kids seem happy and are doing well. I don't think I am the best father in the world. I am a bridge player. I like to think... you get the picture. I just think it is okay to be just "good" at the things that you are good at (and "good enough" at the things that you are not so good at). That doesn't make me really successfull in any single thing that I am good at. But I think it makes normal people succesfull overall. Rik

As you can understand, I tried to construct case 3) as close to the border as I could imagine. (Perhaps someone else can come closer. :) ) My reasons why I think 25A should apply: "Spades" may have been on your mind, but "spades" isn't a call. It is a suit. (I went even further: I wrote "spade support". I consider that "beyond suit", but it is still not a call.) The relevant question is: what was your intended call? Neither is it relevant what card you intended to pull. The only thing that is relevant - according to Law 25A - is what call you intended to make. Though you had the spade suit in mind, and may even consciously have pulled the 2♠ card, you never intended to call 2♠. You intended to call 2NT. Rik

I know you don't see that. But the fact that you don't see it, does not mean that it isn't there. I will try to show it to you at the end of this post. Who is talking about a change of mind? Law 25A doesn't allow you to change your mind. Nobody is advocating that it does. Let's go through the process once more: A player intends to call, e.g., 2♠. (That is his intended call. It is in his mind.) ... there is some reason, any reason, why he is about to do something silly ... his hand puts the card representing 5♥ on the table then the only thing that is relevant is: "What was his intended call?" It was 2♠. Law 25A applies and he can correct 5♥ to 2♠. How or why he was so dumb to put the 5♥ card on the table when he intended to call 2♠ is irrelevant: Sticky cards, thick fingers, or because he remembered that he needed to buy 5 Valentine's day cards. It doesn't matter as long as he never consciously thought: "Let me bid 5♥" since then he, obviously, intended to call 5♥ and changing (back or forward) to 2♠ would indeed be a change of mind. --- You want to limit the corrections to "mishap mechanisms" that you can understand: the physical ones, like misspulls, sticky bidding cards or thick fingers. But there is no legal basis for this limitation. If you think there is then you should quote the law that says that the reason for the mishap has relevance. In real life, there are not only faulty bidding cards or people with thick fingers. There are also people with "non-conscious processes" that can suddenly surface, particularly in the age group that is so dominant in the world of bridge.* Apart from conscious thinking (which leads to consciously intending to make a call) the brain does an awful lot of other things that have nothing to do with "conscious processes". They cause you to do things that you don't intend. Usually they are harmless and don't interfere with anything. (What are your hands doing right now? Playing with that USB stick that was lying on your desk? A paper clip? Are you consciously doing that?) And sometimes they do interfere with other things, like bridge. That is rare, much rarer than coffee stains on bidding cards. But it does happen. As I said, though mechanical mishaps are the most common, Law 25A doesn't limit the mishaps to mechanical ones only. Rik * My favorite real life bridge example of a non-conscious action (it has nothing to do with 25A, but illustrates what weird things brains can do): The 90 year old dealer has just sorted her cards and -before the auction has started- she pulls a card out of her hand and places it face up on the table. It is the ♦2. After some discussion the TD figured out that she didn't intend to pull a card from her hand. In fact, she didn't even realize that she did pull a card from her hand. She denied that the thing that was lying on the table, for everyone to see, was the ♦2 card. She wanted to open 2♦ and she doesn't know better than that she had just done that. Never during the whole discussion, or ever afterwards, did she understand that it was the ♦2 playing card on the table and not the 2♦ bidding card.

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

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

I don't mean anything in a figurative sense. I have taken particular care to be as literal and precise as possible. You don't know that. You think you know that and you think wrong. Read the law book. 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

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

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

We are quite a few years further now. There is a new LK (with Calle Ragnarsson). It would surprise me if the bidding box regulation would still be like it was. (Though UDCADenny's reaction implies that in Sweden it is still not allowed to change your unintended call once it hits the table.) Edit: I found the regulation and it seems like it always was... except that an article has been added: it still emphasizes that you need to look carefully and ascertain that you pull the correct bidding card. The added article says that you are allowed to change a bid that was the result of a misspull. (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, while it is not a misspull according to the bid box regulation, but that is a small difference.) Rik

Look at it this way: You can also go to modern theater, but this you get for free, delivered at home! Rik

My post was not about this particular complaint about bridge in Sweden. I have always loved the bridge there and many other things about the country too. Who knows? I might go back there when I retire. It was about the fact that local devations from the Laws can be found everywhere, even at home, you just don't see them because you are used to them. This bidding box regulation is merely one of many examples. But to answer your question: It is not about what I did, it is about what the regulation says (or said, since I don't know whether it has been changed). And it doesn't matter whether the bid is on the table or "just leaving the box". I myself have always been very careful. :) But when you are a TD in Sweden (like I was) you would like to follow the Laws. When the LK then writes regulations that are conflicting with the Laws and you need to rule at the table, you have a problem: Do you rule according to the regulation or according to the Laws? According to the Swedish regulation, it was 100% clear that a call that was on the table could not be changed. Then you should have looked better. Law 25A is equally clear that you are allowed to change an unintended call for the call that you did intend. There are three conditions: the call you made was not your intended call your partner hasn't called yet you do change it without pause for thought So, where law 25A puts the "deadline for change" at the point where your partner has called, the Swedish LK decided to ignore that and put the deadline half a round of bidding earlier. They knew it was against the Laws, but they didn't care. Rik

I was wondering what Helene was playing, but if a BIT bares partner we can't call it bridge. Rik

This is a matter of adapting to the culture. But you need to realize that this is not exclusive for Chiangmai. I have a very similar experience in ... Sweden. And not just with some club somewhere, no with the LK (Lagkommissionen, the Swedish national Law and Ethics Committee). When I was playing there, they wrote a bidding box regulation that said that once a call had left the bidding box, it couldn't be corrected, even if the call was unintended. This regulation was a clear violation of Law 25A. (And 80B2f says that organizers are not allowed to write regulations that are in conflict with the Laws.) I pointed that out once or twice but the response was basically "This is Sweden, we don't care". It happens everywhere, not just in Chiangmai, or Sweden, also in the Netherlands, and everywhere else. The thing is that you will only notice it when you come from outside. And, of course, you are absolutely correct that they are doing things wrong. But it is their wrong way, and they are happy with it. Let them. Just like I let the Swedes be happy with their wrong bidding box regulation, since they seemed to be happy with it. It's the price you pay for living in another culture. Rik

That only counts if 4D is a SE, but not if it is WoG. We shouldn't really use SEWoG. Instead we should use SENRttIWoG, but I guess SEWoG is easier to pronounce. Rik

[hv=pc=n&s=s52haqt7d83ckqt72&w=skt97h94daq942cj9&n=sqj63hjdkjt75c865&e=sa84hk86532d6ca43&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1d(see%20text)2d(see%20text)p3hpp4dppp]399|300[/hv] (Made on my tablet.) Rik

Basically, the situation is very simple: A played card is a played card and cannot be changed. A card has been played when it is has been taken from the hand and put on or near the table. Playing a card is the physical action of moving the piece of plastic coated paper in the playing position. A player can designate a card: He can announce that he is going to play a card. That card has not been played yet. In practice, designations happen for every card that is played from dummy, but other players can also designate cards. A designated card has not been played yet and can be changed, but only if the designation was unintended. If the player who designated the card intended to play it when he designated it, he cannot change his mind anymore. However, if he misspoke, he is allowed to correct it. This makes it clear that in your situation we were not dealing with designated cards, but with played cards. Having said all that, I would try to live by: "It is good to be right but nice to be wise.". Just let it be and enjoy the part of the bridge that is bridge. Rik

Would you respond 2♣ (GF, clubs or balanced) with that hand? I would bid 1♠ and aim for 4♠ (in case partner supports) or 3NT (when he doesn't). Rik