[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2014-September-17, 10:39, said:

If I'm in the habit of doing something unorthodox to indicate a pass, why should I be given a chance to call again if I'm made aware of my mistake (that I've misunderstood the auction) unless I do it in the pass-out seat?

The EBU regulations attempt to deal with

• proper Passes
  
• improper denotations of Pass (e.g. tapping previous Pass)
  
• action denoting that the auction is over (e.g. picking up bidding cards)

The problem is that [3] may be used to mean
3A. if it is my call, I pass, and the auction is over
3B. the auction is over already, if were my turn to call I would Pass as in [1] or [2]

There is a difficulty in distinguishing [3A] from [3B] because it depends on a players habits, which will not be known by the opponents or the TD. The regulations seek to avoid having to make this distinction unless absolutely necessary.

The unfortunate consequences of the regulation are

• a player picks up their cards as in [3A], not in the pass-out position, retains the right to call
  
• a player picks up their cards as in [3B], but is in pass-out position, may lose the right to call

[blackshoe]

The ACBL bidding box regulation is considerably shorter, and says absolutely nothing about picking up cards. The only germane point in the regulation is "A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made." So picking up the cards, or pointing at or tapping a card already on the table, is not making a call.

[aguahombre]

I have the Norths trained at a local club. At the end of the auction, their first priority is --of course--to make an opening lead or to lay down dummy if applicable. But, at earliest opportunity they enter the contract on the device, doubled or not, and by whom. They softly verbalize while doing it.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2014-September-18, 16:58, said:

I have the Norths trained at a local club. At the end of the auction, their first priority is --of course--to make an opening lead or to lay down dummy if applicable. But, at earliest opportunity they enter the contract on the device, doubled or not, and by whom. They softly verbalize while doing it.

Also train them to enter the board number before anybody takes any card from the board!

Then they will immediately be alerted if they (accidentally) have a board they should not play in that round.

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2014-September-19, 00:06, said:

Also train them to enter the board number before anybody takes any card from the board!

Then they will immediately be alerted if they (accidentally) have a board they should not play in that round.

Yes, they can read the board number. Nothing to enter; it is staring them in the face on the BridgePad.

[VixTD]

RMB1, on 2014-September-18, 13:30, said:

There is a difficulty in distinguishing [3A] from [3B] because it depends on a players habits, which will not be known by the opponents or the TD. The regulations seek to avoid having to make this distinction unless absolutely necessary.

The unfortunate consequences of the regulation are

• a player picks up their cards as in [3A], not in the pass-out position, retains the right to call
  
• a player picks up their cards as in [3B], but is in pass-out position, may lose the right to call

I appreciate your efforts to clarify the regulation, but the rationale for it still escapes me. If a non-orthodox means of making a call is condoned in some situations, why is it not in all? The TD is expected to work out how a player came to make an insufficient bid, so I don't see why this situation should be any different. In both cases the TD should try to find out whether the action was intended as a pass, and if so, rule that the player has passed. If the player can convince the TD that they were just clearing away their bidding cards at what they erroneously thought was the end of the auction, they should be told that they are supposed to leave them out until the opening lead has been faced (in EBU jurisdictions, at least), that the auction is not yet complete, and that it is their turn to call.

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2014-September-19, 07:17, said:

I appreciate your efforts to clarify the regulation,

Thanks. I hope I am not simply defending the indefensible.

VixTD, on 2014-September-19, 07:17, said:

but the rationale for it still escapes me. If a non-orthodox means of making a call is condoned in some situations, why is it not in all? The TD is expected to work out how a player came to make an insufficient bid, so I don't see why this situation should be any different. In both cases the TD should try to find out whether the action was intended as a pass, and if so, rule that the player has passed.

I would much rather the insufficient bid law did not require the TD to find a players intention when making an irregularity. I do not think the requirements of one law (which many think does not work) should not be use to create a precedent for all laws.

I think the aim is to minimize the occasions when we have to rule based on uncorroboratable (self-serving?) statements from one side.

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2014-September-19, 08:36