Maybe not. I see where you are going with it. I imagine a machine where the position and action of the bumpers represents non-locality as opposed to the standard machine where the bumpers are where they are and do pretty much standard stuff when a ball hits them. On the other hand you imagine just having bumpers at all as providing distinction from classical behavior.
Well, there's also the fact that the machine's invisible ...
I admit to not understanding the Bohm interpretation well enough to comment any further and the reading I've done since you posted on the topic hasn't seemed to provide me with much insight. All of the rules we know about forces and fields are local, which causes me to have issues accepting this formulation ...
Well, yes, but ... what's Bohm's doing, it seems to me, is shifting the weirdness of quantum theory about. Compared to the Copenhagen Interpretation, his take on things seems downright mundane. Of course, that's not a reason to believe it, but on the other hand one can't write it off just because
non-local fields are whacky when the alternative sounds like a physicist took too much acid.