[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]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-21, 15:11, said:

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]

lamford, on 2015-April-21, 10:37, 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?

[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]

helene_t, on 2015-April-22, 03:22, said:

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.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2015-April-23, 08:36
Reason for edit: additional action taken.

[lamford]

Quote

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.

PeterAlan, on 2015-April-21, 18:47, said:

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]

lamford, on 2015-April-23, 18:15, said:

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

Yes, but when does "originally" occur?

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2015-April-23, 18:15, said:

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]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-23, 20:36, said:

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]

lamford, on 2015-April-24, 04:31, said:

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]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-24, 05:04, said:

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

Indeed.

[WellSpyder]

lamford, on 2015-April-21, 09:05, said:

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.....