[McBruce]

TD is called to the table. All four players have pass cards in front of them.

However, the players tell the TD that the previous board was passed out, and the second player forgot to put his pass card back before this board began. The third and fourth players did not notice this when they passed.

So the auction has gone: pass from East, pass from West, pass from North.

Now what?

[mink]

According to Law 22A the auction has not ended yet. So it is East's turn to call now, and if he opens, the auction proceeds as normal. If, however, he passes again, Laws 34 and 17E2 take control: all passes except East's initial pass are removed, and it is South's turn to call. Some amount of UI has been generated by the removal of the passes (Law 16D).

Karl

[aguahombre]

---

This is what we see on the table.
South's pass is an unintended call.
L22A refers us to L25.
L25A2 tells us no substitution of unintended call may be made when partner has made a subsequent call.

The auction is over, unless we contrive the reasoning that South made no call at all by merely leaving the green card on the table and not paying attention to what he was doing.

Didn't we outvote me on that point in another thread?

[mink]

IMO a bidding card left on the table from the previous auction is not a call to the current auction, so South did not call and West called out of rotation, which was accepted by North's pass.

Karl

[pran]

mink, on 2012-October-14, 12:22, said:

IMO a bidding card left on the table from the previous auction is not a call to the current auction, so South did not call and West called out of rotation, which was accepted by North's pass.

Karl

Correct - this is your opinion and it may lead to the most extraordinary situations: What if the left-over call is a bid and both LHO and partner (subsequently) bids (in rotation) before any attention is called to the irregularity?

My opinion is different: Bid card(s) found positioned on the table in a normal position for a call made by a player is considered an unintended call made by that player if he has taken his cards from the board but not subsequently placed the bid card(s) in that position. Law 25A applies if he states that he did not intend to make that call.

[jhenrikj]

This was handled in the EBL TD Course in San Remo.

Bidding cards from the previous board still laying on the table is not bids that have been made on the present board.

Karl is right....we end up in exact the same situation as if the bidding went

Pass - (skipped) - Pass - Pass....

[Siegmund]

Looks like pass-skip-pass-pass, textbook ruling, to me.

If we need extra confirmation, we have regulations that tell us when a call is considered made (removed from the bidbox with intent, or similar words) and it's abundantly clear no such actions were made.

[aguahombre]

Willing to accept that I am wrong, according to EBL instruction, and even ACBL or of WBF or whatever. But just the word "removed" doesn't get it done. If it aint there, it has been removed.

[pran]

I know the history.

Now please suggest a reasonable (for both sides) ruling in each of the following situations (if there are significant differences) where dealer's 1♥ "bid" was a leftover from the previous board (I have deliberately avoided alertable calls so there should be no argument about missing alerts or alerts awakening the dealer):

1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣

1♥ - 1♠ - 2♥

1♥ - PASS - 2♥

1♥ - X - XX

1♥ - 2♦ - 2♥

1♥ - X - 2♥

(And before anybody asks: Yes there has been cases where the leftover call was a bid)

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-14, 15:24, said:

Willing to accept that I am wrong, according to EBL instruction, and even ACBL or of WBF or whatever. But just the word "removed" doesn't get it done. If it aint there, it has been removed.

I believe the regulation is using "removed" as a verb, not adjective. I.e. it refers to the player actively removing it, not the card being in the state of having been removed. Also, the regulation says "with intent" -- leaving the bidding card from the previous board doesn't meet that criteria.

[bluejak]

Remember Law 23.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2012-October-14, 16:54, said:

Also, the regulation says "with intent" -- leaving the bidding card from the previous board doesn't meet that criteria.

Hence, unintended?

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2012-October-14, 13:25, said:

What if the left-over call is a bid and both LHO and partner (subsequently) bids (in rotation) before any attention is called to the irregularity?

It is still an irregularity, and it seems to me to be just the kind of irregularity that we can always say could well damage the opponents, so Law 23 is always there to allow an adjustment of all that damage.

It is quite clear that a bidding card left out on the table from the previous hand does not meet the criteria for being a call made in the present auction. We come to this conclusion every time we discuss it.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2012-October-15, 01:46, said:

It is still an irregularity, and it seems to me to be just the kind of irregularity that we can always say could well damage the opponents, so Law 23 is always there to allow an adjustment of all that damage.

It is quite clear that a bidding card left out on the table from the previous hand does not meet the criteria for being a call made in the present auction. We come to this conclusion every time we discuss it.

OK.
Then when because of left over bid card(s) an auction apparently includes a call that is not part of the auction and nobody has noticed this irregularity in time to have a "normal" auction I shall tend to rule that it is no longer possible to obtain a "normal" result on the board. (The only exception is if the "extra call" turns out to be the very call that the affected player would have made anyway.)

Law 12A2 said:

The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below).

and

Law 12C2(a) said:

When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

I shall hold all four players (partly) responsible for this situation as being inattentive and thus award A=/A=.

Law 23 is definitely not applicable here. Even if we hold just one player responsible for the irregularity how can we show that he could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side?

[bluejak]

pran, on 2012-October-15, 02:36, said:

Even if we hold just one player responsible for the irregularity how can we show that he could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side?

Because it is completely obvious?

Remember John Probst's cheat test. What would a cheat do?

Well, a good effort for a cheat is to leave a pass card to and see what happens. If it is his hand, and he has a good hand, he says "Oh, look, I have left my pass card out" and puts it away. If he has a poor hand he leaves it out for a round, then looks puzzledly at the table, and says "But I haven't bid yet."

[pran]

bluejak, on 2012-October-15, 09:06, said:

Because it is completely obvious?

Remember John Probst's cheat test. What would a cheat do?

Well, a good effort for a cheat is to leave a pass card to and see what happens. If it is his hand, and he has a good hand, he says "Oh, look, I have left my pass card out" and puts it away. If he has a poor hand he leaves it out for a round, then looks puzzledly at the table, and says "But I haven't bid yet."

Apparently unlike you I do not consider any bridge player a cheat without sufficient evidence.

Quote from Goldfinger (Ian Fleming):

Once is happenstance,
twice is coincidence,
third time it is enemy action.

How many times do you think your cheat would leave a pass card like that before becoming revealed?

[aguahombre]

The Probst test can be applied to L23. A Probst Cheat is not being called/considered a cheater. Unfortunate that the word is used to describe the situation, but it is a coined term which hasn't yet been replaced by a less inciting one.

[jeffford76]

pran, on 2012-October-15, 02:36, said:

I shall hold all four players (partly) responsible for this situation as being inattentive and thus award A=/A=.

I would have some difficulty holding a player at all responsible for the situation when they finish counting their hand, look down at the table, and see a pass card in the usual spot on their right and so make a bid. A+/A- for me if the board is unplayable.

[jeffford76]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-15, 10:22, said:

The Probst test can be applied to L23. A Probst Cheat is not being called/considered a cheater. Unfortunate that the word is used to describe the situation, but it is a coined term which hasn't yet been replaced by a less inciting one.

Probst "definitely-not-a-cheat"?

[aguahombre]

jeffford76, on 2012-October-15, 10:51, said:

Probst "definitely-not-a-cheat"?

Cute.