Turning Away

[barmar]

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.

Taking the history of the Laws into account is like reading the Federalist Papers to understand the Constitution. It provides background information to help you interpret the document, since English is not always as precise as we would like it to be. This discussion is a perfect example -- there are a number of ways to understand what "intended call" means.

[lamford]

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.

Rubbish. What you overlook is that more than one call can be the "intended" call, depending on the time you perform the brain scan on the bidder. SB looked at his hand and decided that it was wrong to open 1NT; he intended to Pass. He moved his card towards the bidding box; for whatever reason, we care not, his brain then gave a message to his hand to select 1NT. At that precise moment in time, 1NT was his intended call. He intended to select the 1NT card from the box. The 1NT card was selected. If another card had been selected, he would have been allowed to change it under Law 25A.

 

We have to define an "intended" call. The EBU have done that by asking "what did you intend to call when you reached for the bidding box". If SB answered "Pass", then I would ask some supplementary questions. "Are you aware the Pass card is green and in the front of the box". The WBFLC have attempted to define "unintended", but in such a vague way as to be worthless, and contradicted by a later minute.

[helene_t]

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.

Yeah I know the feeling.

 

I am not sure if I would say that you "intended" to use the phone for checking your email, though. It depends how you define the word "intend". So I wasn't joking about this Freudian stuff.

 

Most of the things we think we do after deliberation we actually do by reflex and then construct the deliberation afterwards, fooling ourselves.

 

Personally I wouldn't go into the philosophical or neurophysiological disputes about this so I would just say that if it is not a mechanical error then I don't buy it.

 

OTOH we do allow declarer to correct a slip of the tongue when designating a card in the dummy. So I suppose this is similar, and we ought to be consistent and allow most substitutions if done immediately and if the call made was strange enough that it seems unlikely to have been "intended", whatever that means.

[gwnn]

Of course, actually checking email on the phone is for many of us quite involuntary and/or a disease. And lots of other stuff we do in our day-to-day lives are like that. However, staying in the realm of phone usage, making a mistake such as calling your ex when she told you not to call is to me clearly distinguishable from confusing your two hands, which is also clearly distinguishable from calling your grandma because your finger slipped and you wanted to call your grandpa. In bridge, the equivalents would be: bidding 1NT because you miscounted your points, bidding 1NT because your hand simply took out the 1NT card instead of a pass, and bidding 1NT because it got stuck to the 1♠ card. Now, am I saying that I would believe every single 'offender'? Not remotely. But all three of these are possible 'misbids,' even though in practice it might be difficult to establish which it was and to ask a player not to be self-serving.

[Trinidad]

Rubbish. What you overlook is that more than one call can be the "intended" call, depending on the time you perform the brain scan on the bidder. SB looked at his hand and decided that it was wrong to open 1NT; he intended to Pass. He moved his card towards the bidding box; for whatever reason, we care not, his brain then gave a message to his hand to select 1NT. At that precise moment in time, 1NT was his intended call. He intended to select the 1NT card from the box. The 1NT card was selected. If another card had been selected, he would have been allowed to change it under Law 25A.

Rubbish. At that point in time the 1NT card may or may not have been the intended card to pull, but 1NT has never been the intended call.

 

I am thinking of that children's joke:

 

"Do you know the difference between a kilogram of sugar and a crocodile?"

- "No."

"Then I shouldn't send you to the grocery store for a kilogram of sugar."

 

If you don't know the difference between a card and a call then I shouldn't send you to the bridge club.

 

Rik

[lamford]

If you don't know the difference between a card and a call then I shouldn't send you to the bridge club.

Both the EBU and ACBL interchange "card" and "call" in their explanations of bidding boxes, so the distinction you are trying to make is about as hopeless as the rest of your argument. However, it is interesting to compare the regulations in the three relevant jurisdictions, which might explain the more lenient application of 25A in Holland:

 

[EBU] Starting with the dealer; players place their calls on the table in front of them, from the left and neatly overlapping. This is so that all calls are visible and faced towards partner. Players should refrain from touching any cards in the box until they have determined their call. A call is considered to have been made when it has been removed from the bidding box with apparent intent (but the director may apply Law 25). Note that some left-handed bidding boxes are available, where the calls are placed in a row from right to left.

 

[ACBL] A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made. We should use unauthorized information where reasonably appropriate (where we can rule that a bid has not been made). For close cases simply judge that the card had not left the confines of the box; therefore, a call has not been made.

 

The onus is on the player to convince the director that a mechanical irregularity has occured. Calls from different pockets should rarely, if at all, (except by VixTD), be judged as inadvertent. One understandable exception is placing the double card out followed shortly with a bid card that skips the bidding. This appears clear that the double card was placed inadvertently on the table.

 

[Holland] Deleted.

Edited April 24, 2015 by blackshoe
Per poster's request, I deleted part of this post and have re-approved it.

[blackshoe]

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.

I don't understand this as an answer to my simple (or so it seems to me) "what part of 25A is not satisfied?"

[helene_t]

Paul I think Google translate messed up the Dutch regs for you

[lamford]

I don't understand this as an answer to my simple (or so it seems to me) "what part of 25A is not satisfied?"

I think that the 1NT call is "unintended" using a general definition, but not "unintended" using the definition that should be used for applying Law 25A.

 

A lot of the evil in the world is actually not intentional. A lot of people in the financial system did a lot of damage without intending to - George Soros

[blackshoe]

I think that the 1NT call is "unintended" using a general definition, but not "unintended" using the definition that should be used for applying Law 25A.

 

A lot of the evil in the world is actually not intentional. A lot of people in the financial system did a lot of damage without intending to - George Soros

Can you specify these two different definitions, please?

[Vampyr]

The words "apparent intent" make the EBU position clear. The ACBL regulation quoted above seems to indicate that their interpretation is the same. I am prepared to accept that others simply don't count.

[PeterAlan]

The words "apparent intent" make the EBU position clear.

You misunderstand - or are misrepresenting - this particular point: it's solely about determining the action by which, and the moment at which, a call is deemed to have been made. It means, for example, that a call is not made by knocking the bidding box over and dislodging a bidding card. It has nothing to do with whether the call was "intended" or "unintended" for the purposes of Law 25A.

[PeterAlan]

I think that the 1NT call is "unintended" using a general definition, but not "unintended" using the definition that should be used for applying Law 25A.

Your use of "should" is ambiguous: do you mean

• the definition that ought (in, say, your view) to be used for applying Law 25A, but isn't currently; or
  
• the definition that is applied when the correct (according to the Law and related guidance) current approach is followed?
  

[helene_t]

Joost, where is the sense of humour? The mods here tollerate the most extreme insults so what paul wrote is nowhere near a toc violation.

 

It's a bit unfair though. The Dutch bidding box regs are not particularly liberal.

[blackshoe]

Joost, where is the sense of humour? The mods here tollerate the most extreme insults so what paul wrote is nowhere near a toc violation.

 

It's a bit unfair though. The Dutch bidding box regs are not particularly liberal.

Well, actually, the post in question is a bit over the top. I've unapproved it for now. I considered just deleting the part about Dutch regs, because the rest of it seems okay, but I don't like editing other peoples' posts. I will probably end up deleting the entire post.

 

I've also un-approved Joost's reply, since he quoted Paul. I've sent Paul a PM, and will be sending one to Joost as well.

Edited April 23, 2015 by blackshoe
additional action taken.

[lamford]

lamford, on 2015-April-21, 12:37, said: I think that the 1NT call is "unintended" using a general definition, but not "unintended" using the definition that should be used for applying Law 25A.

 

Your use of "should" is ambiguous: do you mean

• the definition that ought (in, say, your view) to be used for applying Law 25A, but isn't currently; or
  
• the definition that is applied when the correct (according to the Law and related guidance) current approach is followed?
  

Neither. The definition of "unintended" which the EBU County Director's Course advise is that a call is unintended if it was not the call the player intended to select when reaching for the bidding box. If this is wrong, then gordontd is best placed to state whether the EBU interpretation is any different and whether I paid insufficient attention to the course when I took it. It is indeed possible to treat "unintended" as "not the call the player originally intended to make".

[Vampyr]

It is indeed possible to treat "unintended" as "not the call the player originally intended to make".

 

Yes, but when does "originally" occur?

[gordontd]

Neither. The definition of "unintended" which the EBU County Director's Course advise is that a call is unintended if it was not the call the player intended to select when reaching for the bidding box. If this is wrong, then gordontd is best placed to state whether the EBU interpretation is any different and whether I paid insufficient attention to the course when I took it. It is indeed possible to treat "unintended" as "not the call the player originally intended to make".

I think it's standard in the EBU to ask players which call they were trying to make when they reached for the bidding box.

[lamford]

Yes, but when does "originally" occur?

It is not present in the Law, nor in the WBFLC minute, but some (and possibly even the WBFLC in a moment of madness) argue that the player can revert to his originally intended call if there is a brain error, rather than a mechanical error, when selecting the card from the bidding box.

[aguahombre]

It is not present in the Law, nor in the WBFLC minute, but some (and possibly even the WBFLC in a moment of madness) argue that the player can revert to his originally intended call if there is a brain error, rather than a mechanical error, when selecting the card from the bidding box.

And...to repeat Vampyr's question, since you quoted but didn't answer it --- When does "originally" occur? Even if it could be answered, telepathy would be involved when trying to apply it to the entire thought process leading up to the call which was made.

 

Perhaps people should stop looking to L25 for an excuse to take back stupidity.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps people should stop looking to L25 for an excuse to take back stupidity.

Indeed.

[WellSpyder]

What you overlook is that more than one call can be the "intended" call, depending on the time you perform the brain scan on the bidder. SB looked at his hand and decided that it was wrong to open 1NT; he intended to Pass. He moved his card towards the bidding box; for whatever reason, we care not, his brain then gave a message to his hand to select 1NT.

This summarises my own view of these situations well. I do, though, have my own, possibly slightly more complicated example to add. (Unlike Lamford's, this is a real life example. I'm pretty sure I have mentioned it before on this forum, but I think it was quite a while ago.)

 

My partner opened 1♥. I thought my hand was borderline between raising to 2 or 3♥. After some thought, I decided on the latter. So on moving my hand towards the bidding box, I pulled out the stop card. This was followed by the 2♥ card! I don't to this day know how this happened, but I can't help feeling it would be a bit of a coincidence if this was a pure mechanical error caused by stuck cards, or whatever. When the other players looked at me rather strangely, I looked down and saw the 2♥ bid and immediately said that wasn't what I meant to do. Director, please.....