Turning Away

[Vampyr]

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]

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]

.... 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]

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.

 

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

What is the evidence for this assertion?

[lamford]

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:

 

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]

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]

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:

 

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:

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

[Trinidad]

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.

You are confusing things. The old Law 25B2(b)(2) was about changing an intended call. Law 25A is about changing an unintended call.

 

You splintered with 4♥ in response to partner's 1♠ opening. You did so consciously and decided for 4♥ since you valued your singleton and then you made the bid. Once you had made the bid, you figured out that 4♥ wasn't a splinter but natural. That is not a "slip of the brain" that is a bidding error.

 

Under the old Law 25B2(b)(2) you were allowed to change that intended call and play for Ave-. Law 25A has nothing to do with it, since you consciously bid 4♥. 4♥ was your intended call.

 

Law 25A is not about correcting intended calls. It is about calls that one never intended to make. Law 25A is not for the system mistakes or regrets in hand evaluation, like the old Law 25B2(b)(2). It is for when one never intended to bid 4♥, but somehow the 4♥ card is lying on the table. And it doesn't matter whether the 4♥ card landed on the table because of a coffee stain or because "a voice made me pull the 4♥ card". In both cases one never intended to call 4♥ and law 25A applies.

 

And that is very different from deciding to splinter and then regretting it (old Law 25B2(b)(2)).

 

Rik

[PeterAlan]

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.

No. We have

 

• the 2007 Law 25A (which is identical to the corresponding 1997 Law in its relevant part, namely its first sentence)
  
• up-to-date guidance from our regulatory authority on the application and interpretation of Law25A.
  

We don't need to bring anything else to the table - and shouldn't do so, because that leads to inconsistency of ruling from one TD to another. If there's anything from the history of the development of Law 25 that we need to take into account, we should rely on it being reflected in the current guidance, and should not be bringing further personal interpretation (prejudice?) into the picture.

 

If I may mix my metaphors, you seem to me to be heaping Pelion on Ossa in your attempts to justify what I think is ultimately an unsupportable position, and it's time to take Occam's razor to it all.

[RSliwinski]

No. We have

 

• the 2007 Law 25A (which is identical to the corresponding 1997 Law in its relevant part, namely its first sentence)
  
• up-to-date guidance from our regulatory authority on the application and interpretation of Law25A.
  

We don't need to bring anything else to the table - and shouldn't do so, because that leads to inconsistency of ruling from one TD to another. If there's anything from the history of the development of Law 25 that we need to take into account, we should rely on it being reflected in the current guidance, and should not be bringing further personal interpretation (prejudice?) into the picture.

 

If I may mix my metaphors, you seem to me to be heaping Pelion on Ossa in your attempts to justify what I think is ultimately an unsupportable position, and it's time to take Occam's razor to it all.

 

There have been quotes of the WBF Law Committee Meeting from 2000 but I am surprised that nobody has quoted a more recent item 10 of the WBF Laws Committee meeting in Koningshof on 20th October 2011. Here it is:

10. The committee discussed what is understood by a “mechanical error’ in using a bidding box. The term applies to the case where the player intends to call ’x’ and thinks ‘x’ but his fingers inadvertently pull out ‘y’ from the bidding box. As an example: North East South West 1H P 2C P P where 2C shows Hearts support and is invitational. This Pass by North was most probably intentional (i.e. not mechanical) and so can not be changed.

[lamford]

intentional [ ɪnˈtɛnʃ(ə)n(ə)l ] ADJECTIVE

done on purpose; deliberate.

 

That is all we need, and we toss into the bin all these bizarre interpretations by one or two people on here, and also the poorly-worded attempt at clarification by the WBFLC. If a call is not intentional, we can change it. However, there is a difference in interpretation of what is intentional.

 

If someone reaches for a 1NT bid and pulls out a 1NT bid, that is done on purpose and deliberate, and therefore intentional. It does not matter one iota which call he originally intended to make. The action of selecting the card and removing the card at least slightly from the box is the making of the bid. If that card was selected intentionally, it cannot be changed.

 

Trinidad, in one post, suggested that a bid could be changed if it was not the call one wanted to make, but "a voice made me pull the 4H card". No doubt he would have found the Yorkshire Ripper not guilty because voices told him to kill women in the late 1970s.

[helene_t]

It seems to be about the sematics of the word "intention".

 

What would a Freudian say about it if my ego wanted to bid 4♥ but my superego wanted to supress the impulse but failed to do so due to some unfortunate fluctuations in the levels of the involved neurotransmitters?

[Trinidad]

The semantics of the word "intention" have little to do with it.

 

Law 25A says an unintended call can be corrected and replaced by the intended call.

 

Lamford says the exact opposite using the same words that are used in law 25A: an unintended call can not be corrected and replaced by an intended call.

Even though I think that South did not intend [] opening 1NT, we still do not allow a change. I believe he intended Pass []. However, I do not agree that he is allowed a correction.

Now if Lamford wants to run his games ignoring law 25A then that is fine with me. But then he shouldn't claim that he follows law 25A when he so literally ("word for word", nothing about semantics) does the opposite.

 

Rik

[axman]

No. We have

 

• the 2007 Law 25A (which is identical to the corresponding 1997 Law in its relevant part, namely its first sentence)
  
• up-to-date guidance from our regulatory authority on the application and interpretation of Law25A.
  

We don't need to bring anything else to the table - and shouldn't do so, because that leads to inconsistency of ruling from one TD to another. If there's anything from the history of the development of Law 25 that we need to take into account, we should rely on it being reflected in the current guidance, and should not be bringing further personal interpretation (prejudice?) into the picture.

 

If I may mix my metaphors, you seem to me to be heaping Pelion on Ossa in your attempts to justify what I think is ultimately an unsupportable position, and it's time to take Occam's razor to it all.

 

What the WBF has done with 25A was to muddle in the wrong way.

 

They specify that the condition for correcting a call is that it was unintended. What they should have specified is advice to the player who did not believe it was unintended that he shouldn't (as a matter of propriety) even entertain Changing it; and instead focus upon an outwardly discernable way of measuring that a call was unintendted such as by the alacrity with which it was Corrected- as distinguished from Changed.

[PeterAlan]

What the WBF has done with 25A was to muddle in the wrong way.

 

They specify that the condition for correcting a call is that it was unintended. What they should have specified is advice to the player who did not believe it was unintended that he shouldn't (as a matter of propriety) even entertain Changing it; and instead focus upon an outwardly discernable way of measuring that a call was unintendted such as by the alacrity with which it was Corrected- as distinguished from Changed.

What you're saying is that the Law / the guidance should be changed. Fine. But until it is we have to work with what we've got.

[gwnn]

If I am walking around with my phone in one hand and an empty bottle of Coke in another and throw the phone in the garbage bin and attempt to check my emails on the Coke bottle, which part of this was intentional and which part of this was not? People do all sorts of strange unintentional stuff with their hands.

[gwnn]

My example is distinctly different to me just dropping my phone, that would be a "mechanical error" of my fingers. Essentially a lot of people think that these unintentional strange mistakes caused by the brain (not the fingers or the stickiness of the bidding box) never happen. They should see what I'm capable of. :P