[barmar]

IMO, 25A doesn't apply in case 3. At the time you bid 2♠, spades was in your mind. That was the card you intended to pull, although the intention was based on a brain fart.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-13, 13:06, said:

I do not see how a person can say that a call reached for and made is "inadvertent".

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.

Vampyr, on 2015-April-13, 13:06, said:

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.

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.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2015-April-15, 10:18, said:

IMO, 25A doesn't apply in case 3. At the time you bid 2♠, spades was in your mind. That was the card you intended to pull, although the intention was based on a brain fart.

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

[PeterAlan]

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.

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.

I'm with Rik in believing that you are both mistaken; I refer the honourable lady and gentleman to the reasons I gave more fully here, and more briefly (and with my emphasis and editorial addition) repeat:

White Book 2014 said:

8.25.2 How to determine whether Law 25A applies
... 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).
...
8.25.5 Law 25A and Law 45C4 (b): What is inadvertent [now 'unintended' in Law 25A]?[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]

To conclude, in the absence of such mechanical reasons as stuck bidding cards, that the bidder necessarily and always 'intended' to make the call (s)he did because that was the call taken from the box is clearly contrary to the scope of application of the WBFLC minute. The TD's decision must be more nuanced than that simplistic approach.

To give a simpler example, I've had the following auction: 1NT (Pass) 2♥ [announced by me as "Spades"] (Pass) Pass - inadvertent / unintended, because I had no intention of playing in ♥s rather than ♠s, but resulting from a brief "turning away of the mind" following RHO's Pass - the suggestion that there would be a conscious "change of mind" in my saying that my intention was to bid 2♠ rather than Pass is hard to sustain. (Before you ask, this particular instance did not give rise to a ruling - I played it in 2♥ - but it's nevertheless an example of what can easily happen.)

[VixTD]

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

There needs to have been an intended call.

I'm not sure this is true, although I'm impressed by the reasoning in the rest of your post.

It's a commonly-held fallacy that law 25A cannot be applied to calls taken from a different section of the bidding box from the alleged intended card, but I was called to a table where a very good player had passed and claimed that was not his intended call. Away from the table I asked him what he had intended and was told that he wasn't thinking about anything, his mind had been wandering and he had no idea why he had pulled out a pass card. I believed him, went back to the table and let him change his pass for a bid (expecting howls of protest from the opponents which never came).

In this case there was no intended call, but I think I was correct to apply law 25A.

[Trinidad]

VixTD, on 2015-April-16, 06:53, said:

I'm not sure this is true, although I'm impressed by the reasoning in the rest of your post.

It's a commonly-held fallacy that law 25A cannot be applied to calls taken from a different section of the bidding box from the alleged intended card, but I was called to a table where a very good player had passed and claimed that was not his intended call. Away from the table I asked him what he had intended and was told that he wasn't thinking about anything, his mind had been wandering and he had no idea why he had pulled out a pass card. I believed him, went back to the table and let him change his pass for a bid (expecting howls of protest from the opponents which never came).

In this case there was no intended call, but I think I was correct to apply law 25A.

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.

Quote

Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call

This substitution is difficult when there is no intended call.

The lawmakers clarified the need for an intended call even more by adding:

Quote

... but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought.

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

[sanst]

Another real life example of an unintended call happened at our club a couple of years ago. A player is thinking about his call and hasn't made up his mind yet. At the same time he has his hand on the bidding box and pulls out a call, puts it on the table and doesn't even realise that he has done this. It was certainly a nonsensical call, but there was no intended call yet. His story was convincing enough for me to believe him and I allowed him to withdraw his call, although I realised that 25A requires an intended call. Unfortunately, the player hasn't learned from this experience, het quite often fumbles unwittingly with the bidding box when thinking.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-17, 23:20, said:

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.

Right, those would be covered by bidding box regulations on when a call is considered to have been made. If no call has actually been made, there's no need to determine whether it was intended or not.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-April-18, 20:38, said:

Right, those would be covered by bidding box regulations on when a call is considered to have been made. If no call has actually been made, there's no need to determine whether it was intended or not.

Last weekend, in the Swiss Teams at a local Sectional, one of my teammates put out the stop card, and then bid 3♣ over RHO's 2♦. This was passed out and made exactly. The director adjusted the score to 4♣-1 on the grounds that the use of the stop card and my teammate's answers to the questions "were you aware of the 2♦ bid?" and "did you intend to make a skip bid?" (yes and yes) clearly made the 3♣ bid a "willful change of call" (Law 25B) not accepted by his LHO, who called the director at the time 3♣ was bid. I allowed as how I didn't (and I still don't) understand how there was any change of call here, much less a willful one, because until the player put 3♣ out no call had been made, but the director was adamant. My conversations with the director on this were in several short increments over time — he was busy, and we were still playing — and in the end I gave up.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-18, 22:36, said:

Last weekend, in the Swiss Teams at a local Sectional, one of my teammates put out the stop card, and then bid 3♣ over RHO's 2♦. This was passed out and made exactly. The director adjusted the score to 4♣-1 on the grounds that the use of the stop card and my teammate's answers to the questions "were you aware of the 2♦ bid?" and "did you intend to make a skip bid?" (yes and yes) clearly made the 3♣ bid a "willful change of call" (Law 25B) not accepted by his LHO, who called the director at the time 3♣ was bid. I allowed as how I didn't (and I still don't) understand how there was any change of call here, much less a willful one, because until the player put 3♣ out no call had been made, but the director was adamant. My conversations with the director on this were in several short increments over time — he was busy, and we were still playing — and in the end I gave up.

Your teammate was asked his intent before anyone else had called over his 3C. He gave the answer that he intended to make a skip bid. The TD should have allowed (ordered) a 4C bid under 25A at that point and let life go on from there, rather than letting play continue with the 3C bid and adjusting later.

The result would have been the same, apparently; but it would make sense and have a basis in law. Or perhaps it would have been worse for your teammates depending on what 4C means over 2D.

27A rules about conventional meanings of replacement bids would not apply, since 3C wasn't insufficient and wasn't intended anyway. I think the TD accidentally gave your side the best of it.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-18, 23:03, said:

Your teammate was asked his intent before anyone else had called over his 3C. He gave the answer that he intended to make a skip bid. The TD should have allowed (ordered) a 4C bid under 25A at that point and let life go on from there, rather than letting play continue with the 3C bid and adjusting later.

The result would have been the same, apparently; but it would make sense and have a basis in law. Or perhaps it would have been worse for your teammates depending on what 4C means over 2D.

27A rules about conventional meanings of replacement bids would not apply, since 3C wasn't insufficient and wasn't intended anyway. I think the TD accidentally gave your side the best of it.

I fully agree With Ed, there was no reason for any adjustment here:

1: The STOP card is not part of any call and the only call made was 3♣
2: No player can be "ordered" to change a (legal) call made on the ground that he intended a different Call. Law 25A says "may", not "must".
3: The statement that he intended to make a skip bid is stronger evidence of believing that 3♣ would be a skip bid over the previous call than that he intended to actually bid 4♣ (or any other indeed skip bid).

If I had the power I would question this director's qualifications and seriously consider revoking his license as director.

[RMB1]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-17, 23:20, said:

I have seen people use bidding cards to pick up dropped ash from cigarettes. ...

OT

I haven't seen cigarettes at a table (except a garden table) for nearly 10 years, at a bridge table for 20? years.

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2015-April-19, 08:48, said:

OT

I haven't seen cigarettes at a table (except a garden table) for nearly 10 years, at a bridge table for 20? years.

There was still smoking at the YC and the Woodberry well after that, but I never saw anyone use a bidding card to pick up ashes from the table. Bridge in the Netherlands seems to be a sort of Wild West affair though, so I imagine that lots of things happen there which are unheard of elsewhere!

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-19, 11:51, said:

Bridge in the Netherlands outside the British Islands seems to be a sort of Wild West affair though, so I imagine that lots of things happen there which are unheard of elsewhere!

FYP
Dutch bridge culture is actually not that bad. I have seen worse elsewhere.

[mycroft]

s/ashes/cake or cookie crumbs/

Either way, makes me wince!

We have one person who, for dexterity reasons, uses the STOP card to lift cards from dummy to play them. I don't think that's a call either.