auction closed or not ?

[bali 2]

Playing with screens.

North opens 1NT, East Pass, S 2♣,West Pass.

The tray is pushed back to the NE side, but the players don't notice the 2♣ bid, assume the auction closed, take their bidding cards back and push the tray to SW side.

But South asks what is happening and wants to bid again.

What is the ruling ?

 

Does TD consider the auction not closed ?

But W, N and E have passed : doesn't the law 22A2 apply ?

 

Many thanks in advance

Al. Ohana

[gordontd]

What regulations were in force? It seems unlikely that they've followed correct procedure, but players often do this (pick up their cards to indicate a final pass), and if that's generally accepted (or even tolerated) in your jurisdiction then that's what they seem to have done.

 

It seems clear that neither of the "passes" was unintended within the meaning of L25A, so they are stuck with them.

 

It doesn't seem right to allow players extra rights to do what they would not have been allowed to do had they properly followed the regulations (ie take back passes that were intended and correctly made).

[gnasher]

So far the only calls that have occurred are

 

1NT pass 2♣ pass

 

The auction is not over, so it continues, with North to bid.

 

When North and East took removed their bidding cards from the tray, that was because they thought that the auction had already ended. The action of removing your bidding cards may sometimes mean "pass", but it didn't mean that here.

[bali 2]

So far the only calls that have occurred are

 

1NT pass 2♣ pass

 

The auction is not over, so it continues, with North to bid.

 

When North and East took removed their bidding cards from the tray, that was because they thought that the auction had already ended. The action of removing your bidding cards may sometimes mean "pass", but it didn't mean that here.

[

The action of removing your bidding cards may sometimes mean "pass", but it didn't mean that here.

 

Does Pass means sometimes something and sometimes something else ? :)

[bluejak]

Taking your cards off the board means pass in a lot of cases. I agree with Gordon: you do not get the benefit of being allowed to pass this way, and not to have passed if you do not feel like it. Three passes: auction ended.

[Codo]

I do not understand the opinion why there are three passes.

 

First off all: Where in the regulation is paraphrased that it is a pass if you take away your cards? I guess nowhere, but if someone can name the § I would try to learn something new.

 

So in a case where there is no clear regulation, shouldn't we try to restore the "right" result as often as possible? And this is not 2 club by South.

 

Obviously, if you judge that there had been three passes, you must decide that they have to play 2 club. But if you don't, you can rule, that there was no more bid after Wests pass and take it from there.

[kvar]

Even if removing your bidding cards means Pass, it seems clear that North (and East) did not intend to Pass. Once you tell North your ruling, if he says that he didn't mean to Pass without pause for thought, this falls squarely under 25A1 and 25A3, and he gets to change his call since partner hasn't called and the auction period is not over yet.

 

However, if North could have heard South say he wanted to bid again, North has UI which might restrict his choices. It seems unlikely on this auction that Pass is a LA, though.

[duschek]

It seems unlikely that they've followed correct procedure, but players often do this (pick up their cards to indicate a final pass), and if that's generally accepted (or even tolerated) in your jurisdiction then that's what they seem to have done.

If a player removes the bidding cards in the passout seat, it generally is a different way of saying "I pass". That I would count as passing, as if the player had actually placed a green bidding card on the table.

 

However, in this case the players did not intend to pass or in any way imply that they have passed. I would not even apply Law 25A, as the players have not called. They have removed the bidding cards in the belief that the auction is over.

 

Consider the following analogous case: South dealer, bidding goes 1NT-pass-2D-pass (2D=transfer). Now West removes his bidding cards and leads a card against the 1NT contract which he believes is being played. Would you rule that West has passed out of turn?

[gnasher]

Taking your cards off the board means pass in a lot of cases. I agree with Gordon: you do not get the benefit of being allowed to pass this way, and not to have passed if you do not feel like it. Three passes: auction ended.

It's not a question of what North "feels like", it's a question of what he did.

 

If I knock my bidding box over and the 7NT trump card appears face up on the table, I haven't bid 7NT, because the 7NT card didn't arrive on the table as part of an intention to make a call. Likewise, if I pick up my cards not intending that action to represent a call, I haven't called.

[gordontd]

Likewise, if I pick up my cards not intending that action to represent a call, I haven't called.

If you do precisely the same thing when you do intend to pass, then it's hard to distinguish. I'd have more sympathy for the argument of a player who follows the correct procedure when passing (which may be the case in the original post - we weren't told).

[gordontd]

Consider the following analogous case: South dealer, bidding goes 1NT-pass-2D-pass (2D=transfer). Now West removes his bidding cards and leads a card against the 1NT contract which he believes is being played. Would you rule that West has passed out of turn?

I don't think this is analogous. I'd rule it as an exposed card during the auction and apply L24.

[Blue Uriah]

Taking your cards off the board means pass in a lot of cases. I agree with Gordon: you do not get the benefit of being allowed to pass this way, and not to have passed if you do not feel like it.  Three passes: auction ended.

It's not a question of what North "feels like", it's a question of what he did.

 

If I knock my bidding box over and the 7NT trump card appears face up on the table, I haven't bid 7NT, because the 7NT card didn't arrive on the table as part of an intention to make a call. Likewise, if I pick up my cards not intending that action to represent a call, I haven't called.

That's a poor analogy. Knocking your bidding box over probably isn't part of the procedure for making a bid in your jurisdiction. Picking the bids up from the table might well be - if not explicitly so, then by common habit.

[blackshoe]

If the auction had gone 1NT-P-P-P, with the tray on the SW side of the screen after West's pass, what do the screen regulations say is proper procedure? Is it to remove the screen, because the auction is over, or is it to pass the tray and then remove the screen?

 

One wonders why players should pick up their bidding cards before the screen is removed, since leaving them in place through the clarification period would be useful, to say the least.

 

There has been a bid, and the last bid has not been followed by three consecutive passes. North's turn to bid. PP to both sides for paying insufficient attention to the game (if they're playing with screens, they're experienced enough that they rate a PP imo).

 

I do have some sympathy for David's position, and for one thing it may well get these players to pay more attention to what they're doing without a PP. In some similar cases I might well rule that NE have passed, but here I think it's fairly clearly that the intent in picking up the bidding cards was not to pass, but under the assumption the auction was already over.

[dan_ehh]

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.

[gnasher]

If you do precisely the same thing when you do intend to pass, then it's hard to distinguish. I'd have more sympathy for the argument of a player who follows the correct procedure when passing (which may be the case in the original post - we weren't told).

Only "more sympathy"? If North always follows the proper procedure in making his calls, it would be utterly absurd to rule that his picking up his bidding cards constituted a pass.

[gordontd]

They were, from their point of view, just cleaning up.

They were also failing to pay attention to the auction.

[gordontd]

Only "more sympathy"?

Does "more" have an upper limit?

[gnasher]

Only "more sympathy"?

Does "more" have an upper limit?

No, but in this case the lower limit of "more sympathy" is quite low, given how unsympathetic you were about the situation in the original post.

[dan_ehh]

They were, from their point of view, just cleaning up.

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.

[bluejak]

You are correct, but I do not know of any law which says you should treat this behaviour as a pass.

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.

 

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.

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.

[paulg]

Having played every board in the English Premier League, I have yet to find a player who does not sweep up the cards instead of placing the Pass card on the tray in the pass out seat. I have also yet to see a player sweep up his cards in the seat before the pass out seat.

 

Having kibitzed most of the world's top players behind screens, this seems to be common practice.

 

So ruling a pass in the pass out seat when someone picks up their cards seems right. Ruling the third seat pick up as a pass seems wrong.

 

I am surprised that this is not a common situation. The tray passing skills of top players is not great and I've often thought that they could not have seen a bid (or more often a double card) when the tray has been under-pushed. Zia's famous (♥Q?) lead against 6NT was only made when he thought he was defending 4NT.

 

Paul

[dan_ehh]

You are correct, but I do not know of any law which says you should treat this behaviour as a pass.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

The laws ... are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.

 

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.

[bluejak]

We rule according to Laws and Regulations. The Scope is merely to tell us the lawmakers' views, and we do not make decisions based on it. Even if we did, the bit you quote [and everyone always quotes] contains the word primarily, which therefore does not exclude secondary matters.

 

I do not care what the intent is: the players passed.

 

Ok, if they can convince me they do not take their cards away instead of passing, then they have not passed and the ruling should be different.

[blackshoe]

You said upthread David that

players that do this ambiguous action should not get the benefit of any doubt when there is any.

Personally, I have no doubt, given the information in the OP, that both North and East thought the auction had gone 1NT-P-P-P, so that when the tray came back, neither N nor E had any right to make a call. That being the case, at that point, the proper thing to do, what most people actually do, is to remove their bidding cards and put them back in the box. IOW, IMO, their action in this case was not ambiguous, there is no doubt, and there is no reason, no legal basis, for treating the removal of their bidding cards as a pass.

 

But even if you have doubts, your later statement

I do not care what the intent is: the players passed.

does not reconcile well. You are here stating an absolute. Doubt is irrelevant, the circumstances are irrelevant. Some players illegally "pass" by picking up their bidding cards, therefore these players, who picked up their bidding cards, have passed, regardless of any other considerations. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

[duschek]

You are correct, but I do not know of any law which says you should treat this behaviour as a pass.

Of course there is no Law [though I understand Denmark has a relevant regulation].

I think we have no regulation which, perhaps conditionally, translates the premature removal of bidding cards to a pass.

 

Did I cause confusion through a previous post of mine, or is your understanding based on something else, e.g., correspondence with members of the Danish LC?