lamford, on 2015-April-20, 11:03, said:
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:
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.
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:
lamford, on 2015-April-20, 11:03, said:
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".