[lamford]

---

Butler IMPs. Table result, either EW +720 or EW +2000 depending how you rule.

This hand caused some acrimony at a North London club this week. As soon as West doubled 1NT, North appeared to go a bright red, but South, who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, immediately blurted out "I did not intend to open 1NT". "I intended to pass, and for some reason my hand selected the 1NT card." There was a "turning away of the mind" and "the action did not occur as a conscious process of the mind". The TD was called, and SB wanted to change his call to pass, quoting the WBFLC minute in full, which allowed him to change an inadvertent call before his partner had called. He explained to the TD that he had been thinking how bad a 12 count this was for a weak NT, when, inexplicably, his hand selected that bid. How do you rule?

Although not relevant, at 9 of the other 11 tables, where South opened a weak NT, he went for 2000 on the jack of spades lead.

[Vampyr]

Well, according to the rogue interpretation mentioned at length on these forums, you get to make a bid and then decide how you feel about it. If South had held a 6-card minor, he could also have changed his opening bid to one of the minor. Let's go play in one of Trinidad's games; it promises to be a lot of fun.

[steve2005]

Not inadvertent. He made an evaluation of hand then wanted to change mind based on table info. -2200

[Trinidad]

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

[Trinidad]

steve2005, on 2015-April-18, 08:37, said:

Not inadvertent. He made an evaluation of hand then wanted to change mind based on table info. -2200

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

[RMB1]

I wonder if the SB is quoting WBFLC minutes from 2000, before law 25A was changed to use the word "unintended" instead of "inadvertent"?

(If the SB says that the WBFLC minutes must still be relevant because they are quoted in the EBU White Book then all I can say is that those minutes are on my list for deletion.)

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2015-April-18, 10:01, said:

I wonder if the SB is quoting WBFLC minutes from 2000, before law 25A was changed to use the word "unintended" instead of "inadvertent"?

(If the SB says that the WBFLC minutes must still be relevant because they are quoted in the EBU White Book then all I can say is that those minutes are on my list for deletion.)

Well, what does "unintended" actually mean?

And are the minutes that are law interpretations gathered anywhere? If they are not together and accessible, the WBFLCis wasting its time.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-18, 12:40, said:

Well, what does "unintended" actually mean?

That question was answered by Peter Alan in his posts #32 and #44 in the other thread (my emphasis).

Quote

8.25.5 Law 25A and Law 45C4 (b): What is inadvertent? [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]
Note Since 2007, Law 25A and Law 45C4 (b) use the word ‘unintended’: the word ‘inadvertent’ only remains in the heading of Law 47C.

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

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-18, 08:48, said:

So, either you rule based on the information given, or you stand up and say that South is a liar.

No, South is not a liar. He is saying he thought about bidding 1NT, and after his deliberation his mind told his hand to bid 1NT. This is a form of brain fart. If the White book people wanted to forgive brain farts, I am just happy not to be in that jurisdiction. I certainly don't believe the WBF intended to change the game of Bridge that drastically.

Trinidad, on 2015-April-18, 13:23, said:

After all, 'intent' is the result of a conscious process.

And, if I deliberate about my response to some convention, then accidentally pass or give the wrong answer, please do not say my action was unintended. Allowing this type of undo or takeback is not the kind of Bridge I want to play.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-18, 14:34, said:

If the White book people wanted to forgive brain farts, I am just happy not to be in that jurisdiction.

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.

aguahombre, on 2015-April-18, 14:34, said:

I certainly don't believe the WBF intended to change the game of Bridge that drastically.

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

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-18, 14:34, said:

And, if I deliberate about my response to some convention, then accidentally pass or give the wrong answer, please do not say my action was unintended.

Nobody says so.

If you have three aces when you respond to Blackwood, but you miscount and found only 2 and hence replied 5♥ instead of 5♠, then you are not allowed to correct that. At the time when you called 5♥, you did so consciously. You intended to call 5♥ and nothing else. Law 25A does not apply.

If you have three aces, count correctly, but somehow think that 5♥ shows 3 aces and you bid 5♥ then you are not allowed to correct that. At the time when you called 5♥, you did so consciously. You intended to call 5♥ and nothing else. Law 25A does not apply.

But now say that you know how to count to three, and you know that the correct response is 5♠, and you decide to bid 5♠. You want to bid 5♠. You intend to bid 5♠. But for some reason, the 5♥ card ends up on the table. Then you can correct that under law 25A since you never intended to call 5♥. And as long as you didn't intend to call 5♥, it doesn't matter why the 5♥ card landed on the table: coffee stain, thick fingers, (mechanical errors) or because you remembered that you needed to buy 5 Valentine's day cards ("brain fart").

Rik

[aguahombre]

but, that isn't the case here, Rik. He contemplated 1NT and then bid 1NT. Who cares why his mind made his hand bid 1NT. The bid stands.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-18, 08:48, said:

So, either you rule based on the information given, or you stand up and say that South is a liar.

Pfui.

He's either lying, or he's deluding himself. I'll go with the latter.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-18, 18:23, said:

Pfui.

That should have been the first reply; after which anything else would be superfluous.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-18, 17:28, said:

but, that isn't the case here, Rik. He contemplated 1NT and then bid 1NT. Who cares why his mind made his hand bid 1NT. The bid stands.

Indeed, nobody cares why his mind made his hand bid 1NT. That is not relevant.

But neither does anybody care what he contemplated. The bridge laws only care about what he intended.

South claims (and we are talking about the situation where we believe him) that he intended to pass, because he didn't want to call 1NT. Then pass was his intended call. And according to law 25A he can pick up the 1NT card and replace it with pass, the call he intended.

Rik

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-18, 18:23, said:

Pfui.

He's either lying, or he's deluding himself. I'll go with the latter.

That is a possibility too, but either way he is not telling the truth.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-18, 20:27, said:

South claims (and we are talking about the situation where we believe him) that he intended to pass, because he didn't want to call 1NT. Then pass was his intended call. And according to law 25A he can pick up the 1NT card and replace it with pass, the call he intended.

No. His conclusion, after truthfully stating the sequence of events in his mind which led to placing the 1NT card on the table, is the untrue part. What he describes is not intent to pass.

He can use "unintended" all he wants, but that doesn't mean his 1NT bid was unintended. I can say I never intended to pass Stayman; and of course I would never intentionally pass Stayman unless I had psyched my opening bid. Nevertheless, if I pull out a PASS card from its proper place in the box, my "intent" is to Pass --- if my mind thinks I am answering Stayman with a bid, that doesn't redefine L25A.

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-18, 08:48, said:

So, either you rule based on the information given, or you stand up and say that South is a liar.

SB would never lie, and we should assume the facts are as stated, as there is no evidence to the contrary. Even though I think that South did not intend, or even contemplate, opening 1NT, we still do not allow a change. I believe he intended Pass, and had rejected 1NT because of the honour structure and vulnerability, but somehow he made the very bid he was rejecting. However, I do not agree that he is allowed a correction.

[lamford]

steve2005, on 2015-April-18, 08:37, said:

-2200

Is the additional 10% a penalty for being the Secretary Bird?

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2015-April-19, 05:02, said:

Is the additional 10% a penalty for being the Secretary Bird?

There are times I wish we could do this.

I don't believe S at all and would look at a penalty.

Worth checking methods, if NS play a forced redouble mechanism, you'll finish in 2♣x-6.

Funnily enough I genuinely perpetrated something not dissimilar in the credibility stakes last night. Hearts agreed, partner bids 4♠ blackwood, I bid 5♣(1/4) or at least I thought I did, I actually bid 4N (0/3) and stared off into space, partner went into a long tank and when I looked down 60-90 seconds later discovered my mistake before partner (who'd worked out from the previous auction I couldn't have 0/3) had bid. Man wheeled in, simple question, did I indicate I wanted to change my bid without pause for thought as soon as I noticed what I'd actually bid ?