dan_ehh

I think this is a very good idea.

I think failing to notice that the 1NT bidder was already a passed hand is a serious error. And forgive me for the deviation, but I am very curious: what would be a "natural" not alertable meaning of a 1NT overcall by a passed hand?

Completely agree with gwnn's post. I'd also like to add another reason why taking away 3 of my HCP and turning partner's 1NT to a strong NT is not an equivalent situation - we all know that it's better for both offense and defense that the values are split between the two hands. This double is not for penalties. It shows some values, sometimes not enough for game, like in this case. Partner can bid 4♠ if he has a good fit, or leave it.

I, too, don't think passing 4♥ is a LA, and believe doubling is obvious. South has not yet transmitted his values, and anything else looks speculative so X is the only choice. Once in a blue moon the opponents will have 8 ♥ tricks and two aces, but in most other cases they will go down and/or partner will take it out to a making 4♠. So, I think I will let the result stand. Regardless of that, I think once south advertises his values with X, the XX becomes wild and gambling.

Thanks to all who answered

He didn't pitch the jack. Declarer had a singleton ♣ ace, which was cashed, and when in dummy the ♣king was cashed. Declarer had already shown out of ♣s when it was west's turn to follow suit, so he knew the whole layout and there was no need for the play of the jack.

[hv=n=skqh6dkq84ck98652&w=s98hqt98543djcj74&e=sjt765hada653cqt3&s=sa432hkj72dt972ca]399|300|[/hv] South is playing 3NT, I don't have the complete auction and play, but here goes: On the last two tricks, declarer holds 2♠ 2♥ and leads the ♥2. West holds ♥Q ♣7. Dummy has ♣98 and east holds ♠J ♣Q. West tables his cards and claims both tricks before dummy and east play to trick 12. NS object because east might keep the wrong card for trick 13, and dummy's club will win it. How do you rule? Some facts about the play: West has showed out of spades 5 tricks prior to the claim. But two tricks before he claimed, he threw the jack of clubs under dummy's king for no reason.

my picks: 1. dkgrab 2. fred 3. reisig 4. ritong 5. Gerben42

I think the biggest problem with forcing passes is that they are contrary to the basic mechanics of the game. No more so than takeout doubles (double ostensibly means that you don't think the opponent can make the contract) or western cue bids (cue bids usually show something in the suit, but WQB often is used when you DON'T have anything useful in the suit). These things have evolved out of simple bridge logic (takeout doubles are used in situations where it's extremely unlikely that you would have a penalty double). Forcing pass is similar: if the auction has shown that your side is strong enough to bid game, and the opponents bid over it, it's almost certainly a sacrifice, so either your side has to double them or bid over them. This is just standard bidding judgement, used by most experienced players. Unless they've reversed the meanings of pass and double in these auctions, like Meckwell (is it because they bid games so aggressively?), why would anyone bother to document this in their system notes? This is basically correct, but there is a very big difference: Players usually discuss details of their takeout doubles, e.g. "doubles are for takeout through 4♠s", and this is usually reflected in the system card. Same thing regarding cuebids. In my partnership we have extensive agreements about which cuebid shows what and in which situation. Of course, this does not guarantee the prevention of accidents, but at least we are trying. The reason they should document this in the system notes is that sometimes the situation is not absolutely clear, e.g. the the multi which was opened in the other thread, and then the slow pass makes it much clearer. Let me give you another example: You are red and they are white. The auction: (3♦)-p-(5♦) to you. Many expert players play that a pass from you now is forcing, the logic being that if the opponents think they can make 5♦ they would usually try to investigate whether they can also make 6♦, so you can reasonably conclude that 5♦ is an advanced sacrifice. If you make a slow pass, and your partner then doubles with nothing because it is forcing, would you permit this double without proof in form of a written agreement?

This is where all parts of the thread interject. (Well, except for the iPod business) I will not quote myself, but I think verbal statements are very problematic, because when one actually believes one's statement to be true, one will sound truthful and the director is more likely to believe it. And of course we have the problem of those who actually do lie. Sometimes very skillfully. Words are cheap. Anyone can say what they want, and their lies can never be proven to be lies. A directive which says verbal statements are not to be considered as evidence in such cases (misbid vs. misinformation) will be good for various reasons: 1. It will annul the discrimination between those who have rhetorical skills and those who lack them. 2. It will make it very hard for liars and cheaters to "get away with it". 3. It will make the ruling less dependent on "what the director ate for breakfast". As we all know, directors are not always the best players, and the director's judgment may sometimes be flawed. Being able to use judgment is important, but so is consistency. Bridge is not a science and so judgment can go many ways according to which director you get. Having a solid rule in place will eliminate most of these occurrences. I do not think the aforementioned Dutch rule is a very good one, but I am sure it can be improved upon. I think the biggest problem with forcing passes is that they are contrary to the basic mechanics of the game. When someone passes, the pass usually means "I have nothing to add at this time". When someone passes out of tempo, the pass says as above, but the UI given by the BIT says the exact opposite. If the players wish to employ the forcing pass method, I think it makes sense to require them to have written proof that they actually do play this method. They may not have discussed the specific auction, but they should at least have a general agreement regarding when a pass is forcing. If not, anyone can pass out of tempo and later claim it was forcing. Furthermore, I do not think it is a "big deal" to require them to do so. A few lines in the system card should suffice. That Law 75 does not qualify "evidence" is irrelevant. The Law is a body, and all of it applies. This is why I am discussing the issue here. This forum is about changes to the laws, is it not?

It would make the statement "in the absence of evidence to the contrary" (to the contrary of mistaken explanation rather than mistaken call) meaningless since there would always be evidence to the contrary. That may be true in one way. But since this Law is always assumed to mean "adequate evidence" or "compelling evidence" then it makes perfect sense and is a usable Law. Perhaps this is the problem. We have a simple, workable Law. There seems an effort in this thread to change it into an unworkable Law and then say we should not rule the way people do. It seems an unnecessary and unhelpful approach. The law says "evidence". It does not say "adequate evidence" or "compelling edvidence". If, when ruling based on this law, you treat the text as though it says something different, you are interpreting the law. You are basically agreeing with me. Unless you are saying that a player's self serving statement can be considered compelling evidence, in which case we are back to square one.

The problem with this is that there is almost always some evidence to the contrary (i.e., that it was not a mistaken explanation). Even a self-serving statement {"we play this pass as forcing") is evidence.I do not think the lawmaker intended to include verbal statements by the players as evidence for the purposes of this law. Why not? It is evidence. Anyway, the rulings of TDs around the world show they do not agree with you, and the WBFLC has not said so either. The answer to "why not" has already been illustrated by me. Thank you Josh for taking the words out of my mouth (keyboard?).

Okay. I disagree. Now what? It is a well known rule of interpretation that if one interpretation makes the law completely meaningless, and the other one makes it have an effect, you should choose the latter. The lawmaker is presumed not to make useless laws. He is not wasting his breathe (ink, if you like) for no reason.

The problem with this is that there is almost always some evidence to the contrary (i.e., that it was not a mistaken explanation). Even a self-serving statement {"we play this pass as forcing") is evidence. I do not think the lawmaker intended to include verbal statements by the players as evidence for the purposes of this law.

The reason, in my opinion, that people's statements cannot be trusted, is Cognitive Bias and Heuristics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic Often the person giving the answer will be convinced that he/she is speaking the truth, and will be very offended when the director does not take it face value. That is a shame, but it can't be helped, except by explaining the idea of cognitive bias to them, which will usually take a very long time, and often will also lead to having some cards and/or boards thrown at you. (Not very practical during a Bridge tournament, I believe) Written evidence is an indication that you have actually sat down and discussed this issue with your partner, and formed an agreement (Fred's 1D-(X)-2NT example is a very unfortunate one, and I would rather not go into it here). Your word is only evidence that you seem to remember that you had such an agreement. Your memory may be working just fine, but it might also be an effect of cognitive bias. How can we know for sure?

As far as I know, most players who play Multi play that the difference between bidding 4♣ and bidding 4♦ is that the former is meant to make responder declarer and the latter is meant to make opener declarer. Neither of them are meant to establish a force, because 2NT is available for that. I do not see how any of the comments made so far are disputing the common sense approach - bidding 4♣ can be an advanced preemptive bid. It is the same situation as when partner opens a weak two and you raise to 4. It can be a strong hand which wants to play game but not slam, and it can also be a weak hand which wants to block the opponents. The same principle applies to this 4♣ bid - it just means responder wants to play at the 4 level regardless of which major opener holds. Granted, the 4♣ bidder will sometimes have a really strong hand, one which, for instance, wants to play 4♥ if partner has hearts, but which wants to investigate 6♠ if partner holds spades. But the Multi bidder cannot know that until responder makes a second bid. If the North-South pair wish to dispute this common sense approach, they must provide some evidence (not proof - wrong term. I stand corrected) that their approach is different than the normal one. This is true. However, "south considered his pass to be forcing and expected partner to think so as well" does not equal "south's pass was forcing". Players often bid in a certain way while expecting their partner to be on the same wavelength, and it is not so. A simple example: 1NT-(2♣)-2♥-p-p-p. At the end of the board (or, more likely, in the middle of the play), the opponents find out that 2♥ was intended as a transfer. Is that any indication that the NS agreement is that transfers are on after the interference? Or is it an indication that they have no agreement and it was a misunderstanding? I think forcing passes are very delicate situations and I also think partnerships should strive to include as many of them in their system notes as possible, exactly because there is no other way to prove your claim that the pass was indeed forcing.

Players are not always purists: during this week an opponent opened 3NT, alerted, and described by his partner as "Ay-col". I checked: yes he meant a solid minor and a pre-empt. I held Qxx in both minors. They just did not know what they were doing, and we duly gave them a top. I do not believe we were misinformed You are correct. However, Qxx is not the same as QJxx. The chances of you holding QJxx in the opponent's "solid 7 card suit" are much lower than the chances of you holding Qxx in the opponent's "solid 7 card suit". So South might not "surely know" something is wrong, but it is likely that he he will. Also, this was a screened event where, in my experience, the quality of the game is usually higher than standard, and players usually know what they are doing. Of course this point may be moot, considering the fact that East forgot the system he was playing. Anyway, as noted before by myself and others, the ruling depends very much on the NS and EW agreements.

If south had been given correct information, he would surely know something is wrong, because east cannot possibly have a true "gambling 3NT" bid looking at south's minor holdings. South might choose to wait for west's (automatic?) 3NT bid and only THEN double. Maybe he would pass because X would show spades in their system? Maybe he would bid 3NT because he is afraid partner will bid spades? In other words, south might be able to make a much more intelligent decision, and so I think I would not let the result stand. Not sure what I would adjust it to, however. That would depend on the NS agreements and also the EW agreements (if 3♠ forces partner to bid 3NT then passing first and doubling later looks rather clear).

4♣s can be an advanced preemptive bid and does not show a strong hand, so unless NS can prove that they have an agreement that the pass is forcing, I would not allow the double.

Of course there is no Law [though I understand Denmark has a relevant regulation]. But custom & practice allows it to be done. It seems to me that if you normally remove your cards to make a pass you have put yourself in the unfortunate position whereby if you remove your cards you have passed. Compare my actions. I touch a pass card as the final pass: I know a player who always says "Pass" as the final pass. These are clear unambiguous passes, albeit illegal under the Regulations. But taking your cards away I do not like because it is ambiguous: have you passed or have you taken your cards away without passing? Thus, players that do this ambiguous action should not get the benefit of any doubt when there is any. No, not at all. That is just the reason why I find this method of passing unacceptable. Since the action of taking cards way is ambiguous and illegal, a player who does so should expect to be ruled against if it matters. I do not condone removing your bidding cards and skipping the final pass, but I also do not see the relevance to this case. We were not told in the OP that north and east regularly pick up their cards instead of making their final pass, so I see no reason to make this assumption, but even if they do belong in the group of people who act in this unwanted way, they obviously were not committing this unwanted action now, because they thought the situation was different. The only wrong thing they have done is not pay sufficient attention, and for that you might be correct in penalizing them, but artificially ending the auction is the wrong way. It seems to me that you are punishing the north and east players for an irregularity they may or may not have performed on a different board(s). It seems absolutely clear to me that this specific irregularity has not occurred in the discussed board. Furthermore, I do not see any reason not to let the auction continue. Since both north and east did not pay close enough attention to the auction, they are both at fault, and so there is no non-offending side which needs to be protected, but moreover, I do not see any damage which needs to be rectified. What is wrong with simply letting the auction continue after west's pass? South's comment about making another bid may be UI, and perhaps the TD should speak to NS about UI restrictions, but that seems to be the only problem, and not a very big one anyway since the player who bid stayman will make another bid in 99% of the times.

They were also failing to pay attention to the auction. You are correct, but I do not know of any law which says you should treat this behaviour as a pass. Logic also dictates that you shouldn't. Perhaps a PP is in order. Your point about not being able to distinguish between this behaviour when it is intended as a pass and when it is not intended as a pass may be valid under a set of different circumstances, but it seems to be moot in this situation, because one cannot intend to pass when one thinks it is not one's turn to pass.

I think there is a distinct difference between two scenarios: 1. The last two calls in the auction were passes, and the next player, whose intention is to save time, simply removes the bidding cards instead of reaching for the green pass card, putting it on the table, and then removing them. 2. All the other players at the table, removing their bidding cards after the auction has reached its conclusion. In the first scenario, the last player, who neglected to put the pass card on the table, is considered to have passed. In the second case, all the other players are just cleaning up. In this case, the players sitting in the north and east seats did not think they had another call to make. They thought the auction had already come to an end. Therefore I think it is wrong to say that by taking away their bidding cards they have passed. They were, from their point of view, just cleaning up.

Experienced players know it is not their job to decide whether or not there was a logical alternative. It is the director's job. There was a hesitation, and north's hand does not match their expectation from the bidding. I feel it is very normal to call, and while I agree that the score should stand and south has no logical alternative, I am very troubled at your approach to this case.

I think gnasher's argument clearly articulates how the player thinking with the 13th card is benefiting from the delay. Declarer is starting to worry about what to do when the suit isn't breaking, is getting upset about the fact that he might not make her contract, her mind is racing on possible ways to make the contract albeit the bad break, she is using a lot of mental energy, and all of this goes to waste when the (selfish) player finally follows with the card. Whether or not it was intentional, the delay WAS disconcerting and DID work in the hesitating player's advantage in the sense that declarer is now more fatigued (and annoyed) and is likely to do less successfully in the following rounds. While there is no actual damage on the current deal, I believe this is an infraction which should warrant a warning, and if repeated I definitely think a penalty is in order. This is very undesirable behaviour.

After reading past threads I see pretty much everything that has to be said has already been said. Post canceled.