[MickyB]

At the end of the hand, it becomes apparent that EW believe they've played 3N-3, while NS believe they've defended 3N X - 3.

Say you rule, influenced perhaps by the club's new red tableclothes, that the double was indeed made, just not seen by EW.

Is there any provision to allow an adjusted score, on the basis that the auction hadn't finished, and that 3NT X wouldn't have been the final contract had West been aware that he still had another call?

Do NS have a responsibility to inform West that he has another call?

[lamford]

MickyB, on 2014-September-15, 11:08, said:

At the end of the hand, it becomes apparent that EW believe they've played 3N-3, while NS believe they've defended 3N X - 3.

Say you rule, influenced perhaps by the club's new red tableclothes, that the double was indeed made, just not seen by EW.

Is there any provision to allow an adjusted score, on the basis that the auction hadn't finished, and that 3NT X wouldn't have been the final contract had West been aware that he still had another call?

Do NS have a responsibility to inform West that he has another call?

Was the double not followed by three passes?

[RMB1]

MickyB, on 2014-September-15, 11:08, said:

Do NS have a responsibility to inform West that he has another call?

North or South should not lead until the auction is over - so they should ensure that West has taken some action to demonstrate he has passed.

[paulg]

Did everyone pick up their bidding cards before the opening lead?

[MickyB]

paulg, on 2014-September-15, 12:01, said:

Did everyone pick up their bidding cards before the opening lead?

I believe so, yes.

[paulg]

paulg, on 2014-September-15, 12:01, said:

Did everyone pick up their bidding cards before the opening lead?

MickyB, on 2014-September-15, 12:09, said:

I believe so, yes.

This is normally the case when there is a disputed double, especially when the double was followed by two passes and everyone picking up the cards - one player because he thinks the auction is over and the others because they think the final player has passed by picking up his bidding cards.

I'll now leave it to the directors on the forum

[barmar]

There have been numerous threads involving confusion that results from players picking up their bidding cards instead of putting a Pass card down on the table. My general reaction has been this:

Bidding box regulations stipulate the proper way to make calls. The proper way to pass is to put down a Pass card.

Picking up your bidding cards, or tapping the table, or any other gesture, is not proper. However, we usually do not penalize this, based on the "no harm, no foul" principle.

But if there's confusion as a result, and the TD gets called as a result, the "no harm" prerequisite is violated. If you take a shortcut like this, and I have to get involved as a result, you get no redress. If both sides do it, they're both the offending side.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-September-15, 14:37, said:

There have been numerous threads involving confusion that results from players picking up their bidding cards instead of putting a Pass card down on the table. My general reaction has been this:

Bidding box regulations stipulate the proper way to make calls. The proper way to pass is to put down a Pass card.

Picking up your bidding cards, or tapping the table, or any other gesture, is not proper. However, we usually do not penalize this, based on the "no harm, no foul" principle.

But if there's confusion as a result, and the TD gets called as a result, the "no harm" prerequisite is violated. If you take a shortcut like this, and I have to get involved as a result, you get no redress. If both sides do it, they're both the offending side.

So in this case you would award the defense the score for 3NT down 3, and the declaring side the score for 3NTX down 3?

[MickyB]

barmar, on 2014-September-15, 14:37, said:

If you take a shortcut like this, and I have to get involved as a result, you get no redress. If both sides do it, they're both the offending side.

Surely it's irrelevant whether EW normally do this, unless NS *know* that West normally does this?

Obviously, this would be different if only one of EW had missed the double.

[blackshoe]

Something similar to this happened to me several years ago, in a small club in a nearby town. Two LOLs declared 3NT. We all agreed, at the end of the hand, that they'd made 3. Then at the end of the round, one of them handed me a pickup slip marked "3NT making 4". I objected. They insisted. My partner chimed in. They still insisted. We moved to the next table. We (I - my partner moved out of state) have never gone back to that club. Why didn't we call the director? New players at this small club where everybody else all knew each other and they all seemed friendly with the director. I didn't see a point in arguing.

[VixTD]

MickyB, on 2014-September-15, 11:08, said:

At the end of the hand, it becomes apparent that EW believe they've played 3N-3, while NS believe they've defended 3N X - 3.

Say you rule, influenced perhaps by the club's new red tableclothes, that the double was indeed made, just not seen by EW.

Is there any provision to allow an adjusted score, on the basis that the auction hadn't finished, and that 3NT X wouldn't have been the final contract had West been aware that he still had another call?

If your ruling is based on the assumption that the auction has gone:

.... (W) 3NT - (N) X - (E) P - (S) P; then West, followed by the others, pick up their bidding cards, then according to the White Book 8.22.2 the TD may deem that their action constituted a pass, and that once the lead has been faced there is no going back to the auction. It doesn't say that no adjusted score can be awarded, but I think this ruling suggests that you think that West passed because he misunderstood the auction, and as Law 21 says,

Quote

No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

.
Unfortunately the White Book follows this with an example auction in the same section where a player reads her partner's double as a pass and picks up her cards, thinking she is in the pass-out seat. The Laws and Ethics Committee think she should be allowed another call once she realises her mistake, which seems to go against the rest of the advice they've given on this matter, and makes no sense to me.

[blackshoe]

Nor to me. Maybe you should ask the L&E Committee to explain it.

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2014-September-16, 07:15, said:

If your ruling is based on the assumption that the auction has gone:

.... (W) 3NT - (N) X - (E) P - (S) P; then West, followed by the others, pick up their bidding cards, then according to the White Book 8.22.2 the TD may deem that their action constituted a pass, and that once the lead has been faced there is no going back to the auction. It doesn't say that no adjusted score can be awarded, but I think this ruling suggests that you think that West passed because he misunderstood the auction, and as Law 21 says, .

"may" is important

VixTD, on 2014-September-16, 07:15, said:

Unfortunately the White Book follows this with an example auction in the same section where a player reads her partner's double as a pass and picks up her cards, thinking she is in the pass-out seat. The Laws and Ethics Committee think she should be allowed another call once she realises her mistake, which seems to go against the rest of the advice they've given on this matter, and makes no sense to me.

If partner has doubled, then whatever the player thinks, the player is not in the pass out seat and picking up the cards will not be deemed as a Pass.

[Cascade]

Seems flawed when the action one would take when you thought RHO had concluded the auction is the same as the action that would be considered you concluding the auction - picking up your bidding cards. I don't really see the logic of determining that because I picked up my cards because I thought the auction was over that I should be deemed to have passed. It seems much better to insist that the player passes correctly.

Even better is to use bidding pads in which a more permanent record of the auction is kept.

[blackshoe]

I think the best way to handle this kind of thing is to say to the table "Look, if you want to violate correct procedure, either in your bidding and play actions or in not calling the director when a violation of correct procedure occurs, and nothing goes wrong, I'm not going to hear about it, so there isn't much I can do about it. If something does go wrong, and I'm called, I'm going to rule that anyone who did not follow correct procedure is an offender, and follow the laws in rectifying the offenses. That means that when people pick up their bidding cards in a live auction, absent three consecutive passes, you are all offenders. The rectification I would provide, assuming an opening lead has not yet been faced, would be to restore the auction to the point where people screwed it up, require the bidding and play to continue from there, and issue a PP (which would probably be a warning the first time) to all offenders involved. If an opening lead has been faced, I would consider and probably award an assigned adjusted score, considering both sides offending - and not forget the aforementioned PP".

Players will grumble. "Everybody does it." "What's the big deal?" "Oh, come on, that's not fair." Wrong. It's the only thing that is fair, especially considering

Quote

Law 72A: Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws.

When they complain "This isn't a tournament, it's a club game!" my answer is "The laws do not distinguish between the two".

[VixTD]

RMB1, on 2014-September-16, 14:39, said:

"may" is important

If partner has doubled, then whatever the player thinks, the player is not in the pass out seat and picking up the cards will not be deemed as a Pass.

If the auction goes:

"bid - X - P - P" and the bidder reads this as "bid - P - P - P"

then surely the director is less likely to rule that the bidder's action in picking up the bidding cards constitutes a pass (because in the bidder's mind the auction is over and they have no further call to make) than if the auction goes:

"bid - bid - X - P" and it's likely that the first bidder read this as "bid - bid - P - P".

At least in this second case the bidder believes they still have an opportunity to call. (It's stretching credibility to suppose that offender mistook two different calls for passes.)

It seems wrong to rule that an action which could have been intended as a pass and would be deemed to constitute a pass in one situation would not be deemed a pass in the other. (Of course, in the second case offender's LHO still has a chance to call over offender's pass.)

[RMB1]

I don't think it is question of what is more likely.

The White Book position is that picking up the bidding cards can only be deemed a Pass in the pass-out position (or if the opening lead has been made). I think the ruling at the end of §8.22.2 is consistent with that position. If the last paragraph of §1.6.2 or any of §8.22.2 is unclear with respect to that position, perhaps someone can suggest a rewording.

[VixTD]

RMB1, on 2014-September-17, 09:42, said:

I don't think it is question of what is more likely.

The White Book position is that picking up the bidding cards can only be deemed a Pass in the pass-out position (or if the opening lead has been made). I think the ruling at the end of §8.22.2 is consistent with that position. If the last paragraph of §1.6.2 or any of §8.22.2 is unclear with respect to that position, perhaps someone can suggest a rewording.

That's how I read it, so it doesn't need rewording, just an explanation of why anyone should think this is correct.

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?

[barmar]

Cascade, on 2014-September-16, 23:52, said:

ven better is to use bidding pads in which a more permanent record of the auction is kept.

Having never used written bidding (from what I've read, I think this is only common down under), I wonder if those players also find similar shortcuts. It seems like human nature.

[Cascade]

barmar, on 2014-September-17, 10:56, said:

Having never used written bidding (from what I've read, I think this is only common down under), I wonder if those players also find similar shortcuts. It seems like human nature.

Very few variations in the use. If anything the tendency is for players to follow the regulations pedantically.