[jillybean]

ACBL
You are called to the table and told the following

The auction started PASS PASS. Player in 3rd seat pulled a pass card out of the bidding box and concealed the pass card behind the cards held in hand,thought for 15 seconds, reached for the bidding box, removed the 1C card, which was placed on the table and then returned the pass card to the bidding box.

[mw64ahw]

Can the ACBL really make Laws; maybe rules and regulations? Semantics maybe country dependent, but I thought Laws are reserved for sovereign states and their legislative bodies. On the basis perhaps the rulebook is inadmissible?

[pescetom]

 mw64ahw, on 2026-February-24, 01:50, said:

Can the ACBL really make Laws; maybe rules and regulations? Semantics maybe country dependent, but I thought Laws are reserved for sovereign states and their legislative bodies. On the basis perhaps the rulebook is inadmissible?

The Laws are made by WBF for the whole world, although ACBL likes to pretend they are ACBL Laws.

The twist is in how the regulations of an RA (like ACBL) about use of bidding box interact with the Laws.

Unfortunately some RAs (like FIGB) say that the call is made only when the bidding card is placed on the table: so now we are not in L25 as the Pass was never made. I would handle it as if the player had said "I'm tempted to Pass, but..." and then bid 1C. A 73B penalty for brazen illegal supply of information and then stay at the table with L16 ready to judge potential use of the UI.

Not sure how it works in ACBL.

[blackshoe]

Pretty much same way as in FIGB.

COC, App. G said:

BIDDING BOXES (no screens)
1. Players must choose a call before touching any card in the bidding box. 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.
2. Once a call has been made, the provisions of Law 25 (parts A and B), as written, govern changes of call.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2026-February-24, 16:03, said:

Pretty much same way as in FIGB.

Thanks. I remember now because that modification (adding "or nearly touching" etc) was evidenced by ACBL in a clarification recently discussed on that other forum. My comment then was that it would have been more logical and just to adopt the laws criteria for play of a card by a defender (in such a way that partner might have seen) rather than the more liberal criteria for declarer.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2026-February-24, 16:03, said:

Pretty much same way as in FIGB.

How do you rule?

[mycroft]

Simple. LOTS of UI, "pass" was a call not made, 1♣ stands. What did partner do?

In England and other places in the world, one hopes the director was called when the pass card ended up behind the player's cards and the rest of the story didn't happen.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-February-25, 13:18, said:

Simple. LOTS of UI, "pass" was a call not made, 1♣ stands. What did partner do?

As the man said.
Plus a penalty for the brazen act with Pass, as I said (and yes, even if a beginner, because this wasn't a mistake and certain tendencies are best stopped early).

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2026-February-25, 13:18, said:

Simple. LOTS of UI, "pass" was a call not made, 1♣ stands. What did partner do?

In England and other places in the world, one hopes the director was called when the pass card ended up behind the player's cards and the rest of the story didn't happen.

Partner was cautioned not to take any inference from initial 'pass'
LHO bid 1nt which ended the auction

---

EW +180

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-February-25, 16:28, said:

Partner was cautioned not to take any inference from initial 'pass'
LHO bid 1nt which ended the auction

Partner did not use the UI but opponents might well have found 3NT without these antics, adjust score and double the penalty.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2026-February-25, 16:40, said:

Partner did not use the UI but opponents might well have found 3NT without these antics, adjust score and double the penalty.

I like that, but not for North America
North/South are "A" players

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2026-February-25, 16:40, said:

Partner did not use the UI but opponents might well have found 3NT without these antics, adjust score and double the penalty.

Looks to me like East contributed to their own damage. 1NT is a definite underbid with 20 HCP, assuming the typical 15-18 range for a 1NT overcall. The proper bid is double, and then when partner bids 1NT you can raise to 3.

Is this a situation where we could award a split score: +180 for EW, -430 for NS?

[blackshoe]

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2026-February-25, 17:50, said:

Looks to me like East contributed to their own damage. 1NT is a definite underbid with 20 HCP, assuming the typical 15-18 range for a 1NT overcall. The proper bid is double, and then when partner bids 1NT you can raise to 3.

In a normal lucid bidding situation yes, but under pressure of the emotional reactions to a dispute and the presence of the Director carefully inspecting play, it is quite normal for players on both sides to lose focus and bid conservatively. IMO the relevant question is "would East have made the same underbid if North simply bid 1♣?". If not, then it seems reasonable to me to invoke L12A and adjust the score. If so, then an A pair should not be psyching against such weak opponents anyway, so my heart is with blackshoe although I probably give in to you and let score stand.

[jillybean]

barmar, on 2026-February-25, 17:50, said:

Looks to me like East contributed to their own damage. 1NT is a definite underbid with 20 HCP, assuming the typical 15-18 range for a 1NT overcall. The proper bid is double, and then when partner bids 1NT you can raise to 3.

Is this a situation where we could award a split score: +180 for EW, -430 for NS?

IMO, this is why some players give up Duplicate early.

Something very strange has happened, the Director has been called, there's been a heated discussion and now we ignore what effect the infraction could have had on the NOS.
The OS get a tutt tutt and slap on the hand, "don't do that again"

[mycroft]

So, here's the thing. And it's the same thing that I get on Lamford's case when he Chimps up. And it's a very hard thing to resolve - which is why Lamford raises it with his North London Menagerie.

South is blameless. If East had had the expected 17 count, and South had one of those kings, and this auction were perpetrated, we would be flying to the roof. "Third seat openers can be suspect" - yeah, not when you have UI that it *is*. I'll see how much of -200 I have to give them along with the -480; not sure it's that much. And the procedural penalty. And the referral to the committee, or at least the check with others to see if this is one of "those" players.

But here, South was locked into doing the right thing.

But this isn't the whole story. North's actions provided a *lot* of UI to South - but it provided a lot of information to East/West as well. Which, absolutely, they are allowed to use *at their own risk* (73D1), but when passing that information to E-W might benefit North? Now we have a different problem.

We know N-S is an A pair; what about E-W? (Yes, I know, non-offenders, really, I will get to it).

• If they're new - I am absolutely going to hit North with a violation of 73D2, 73E2 - or even 72C (the old law 23). North decided, with a pass card in their hand, to psych against a newer pair, knowing that their actions with the pass card could deceive/assist in the psychic. They're stuck with the "actions" (given when it looks like they thought about the psychic), so that means they're ethically barred themselves from doing it this time.
  
  Normally, if I do have to penalize players for what is not obviously a tolerance issue, I do it without the opponents knowing; there are too many gloaters out there as it is. This time? "I can believe you didn't do this in order to try to get these opponents to go wrong; accidents happen. But I can't believe you didn't think it *could* aid in getting the opponents to go wrong, and chose to take the same action someone *trying to coffeehouse* would do. That's not legal, and it certainly shouldn't be done against people we're trying to keep in the open game." I'd like to add "do you really think you can't beat *these opponents* without playing games like this?", but, you know, that's for when they're not actually at the table.
  
  If this happened against the M-s just out of the NLM game, it's also referral to committee time. Frankly, this is where I really wish the penalty could be "score stands, and I will tell the story in the bar after to the rest of the A game."
  
  Can I give a L12 adjusted score on the basis of a L73 infraction? That's actually a good question. I'll have to ask that.
  
• If E-W are A players, or even experienced: nothing the opponents do should stop East from bidding their hand correctly, and we all know that to show a "bigger than NT NT", double-and-bid NT. Whether this East got flustered, or confused, or deceived, they had a 20 count and bid it like 17. And they got unlucky that a) South didn't have enough to double, and b) South *did* have enough that West didn't invite. That doesn't mean what North did was blameless, or that there shouldn't be a reckoning - but the "deception" really shouldn't have affected anything, and it did because of a clear bridge error, after the infraction. "Unrelated to"? If you're experienced enough, yeah. I have as much sympathy for an experienced East as I do at the next table where North passed in tempo, and East opened 1NT, for whatever reason, and played it there.
  
  Do I still hit North with 73E2? You know, probably. If he'd had a reasonable, weak 3rd seat opener (xx Qxxx xx AQJTx? I don't play standard often enough to know what a good "weak" 3rd-seat 1♣ is, or if it's a good idea to "3rd-seat minor opening" at all), and he was just deciding if vul, he could survive it, okay, sure. But in combination with a psychic, this is indistinguishable from coffee-housing, and an A player should know that. Even if his opponent "shouldn't have been influenced"; even if this opponent "should just bid their cards"; I want North to know that you have to not only *be* ethical, but *look it*, especially when they "choose to violate agreed system".
  
  Do I still do the "recorder form" game, whether it is in fact doing the ACBL online form thing, or discuss with other directors, or bring it to the club committee? Again, maybe, but again, "against this East, it shouldn't have affected anything" - and everyone knows it.
  
  Do I make it very very clear that if this isn't over the line, it's so close to it that the cliff might crumble and take you with it? Well, yes.
  
  Do I hope that West *does* tell the story after the game, and while East will be ridiculed for "letting North's histrionics dissuade you from bidding the 13 cards in front of you", the rest of the A side of the club will know the story and keep telling it for months to come? "Just as a caution" to their partners, of course?

Now, if this all is one or two clubs I know of, "don't look A+/A-" (which turns into 60/10 or 60/0 after the penalty) - may or may not be legal, but it does solve the problem...

But as for Law 25 - the regulations are the way they are. The infraction, if there is any, is a propriety issue, not one of "is the call made"; in the ACBL, it clearly isn't. Is the regulation we have the best one? I think my opinion on that (and why it is the way it is) is clear from previous posts.

[blackshoe]

"Players must choose a call before touching any card in the bidding box". North might argue that he did that, but that before the call was made he changed his mind. Technically, he'd be right. Still, I'd issue a PP for violation of a "must" requirement, since the laws call this "a serious matter indeed".

"Pass" was not a call made here; North's call was 1♣. I would rule that South now has UI from North's initial action in removing the pass card from the box.

I would ask South for the agreed meaning of North's 1♣, particularly in third seat. I would ask North if he considers bidding 1♣ a psych.

EW are presumably not "A" players, since we were told only that NS were. East made a mistake in not doubling. I'm not going to hold that against him, so I'm not splitting the score. I am going to ask him if double had occurred to him. I would investigate what East thinks he would have done if North had passed. If he still bids 1NT, I'm not giving him damage from not getting to 3NT. If he opens 2NT, then EW were pretty clearly damaged.

Would West have bid 3NT over an opening 2NT? I hope so, but I don't know. I'd ask him. What would West have done over "double"? Again, I'd ask.

Suppose West bids 1NT over double. How would the play go in 3NT by West? This may be the appropriate adjudicated result. May be. Something to consider.

North committed an infraction. When was the Director called?