Year End Congress 3

[mjj29]

The final ruling from the Swiss Pairs that I'm going to post is one which completely split the directors present.

 

The auction went 1NT-3D-X-P, at which point the 1NT bidder started picking up her cards, believing herself to be in the pass-out seat. Only then did she notice her partner's double, at which point she said "oh, I didn't notice the double" and put the 1NT bid back down.

 

The interesting part of the ruling is whether she should be deemed to have passed, or whether she can respond to her partner's takeout double. I've not posted the hand because it's not important. (As it happens 3D goes 1 or 2 off (vulnerable) and 4H makes (non-vulnerable), so it might be relevant, except that opener at this table proceeded to bid to 4H and then misplay it to go off.)

[pran]

The final ruling from the Swiss Pairs that I'm going to post is one which completely split the directors present.

 

The auction went 1NT-3D-X-P, at which point the 1NT bidder started picking up her cards, believing herself to be in the pass-out seat. Only then did she notice her partner's double, at which point she said "oh, I didn't notice the double" and put the 1NT bid back down.

 

The interesting part of the ruling is whether she should be deemed to have passed, or whether she can respond to her partner's takeout double. I've not posted the hand because it's not important. (As it happens 3D goes 1 or 2 off (vulnerable) and 4H makes (non-vulnerable), so it might be relevant, except that opener at this table proceeded to bid to 4H and then misplay it to go off.)

If I remember the relevant WBFLC minutes correct (it is bed-time here and I am too tired to look them up) a player in the pass-out seat is deemed to pass if (s)he picks up his(her) cards, other players are not. (But they do create UI!)

[campboy]

I can't think of any regulation in force which says that a call may be considered made by picking up cards. I doubt the WBFLC minute applies, since it deals with bidding boxes and therefore does not appear be an interpretation of any law. It must be describing bidding-box regulations for WBF tournaments, but the EBU has its own bidding-box regulations.

[blackshoe]

It is not a minute. It is part of the WBF's General Conditions of Contest. IOW, it is a regulation applicable to WBF events, not an interpretation of law.

[bluejak]

The Danish Bridge Federation has a similar regulation, which has as much relevance to an EBU Swiss Pairs as the WBF regulation [not a WBFLC regulation].

 

It is difficult to feel any sympathy for opener who was trying to ignore the regulations anyway, even if she ignored a different regulation from the one she thought she was ignoring. She is required to leave her calls on the table until the opening lead is faced, which regulation she was trying to ignore: in practice she was merely ignoring the Law about three passes to end an auction.

 

Despite my lack of sympathy for her, she has not passed, so she is now allowed to call. A tiny PP, perhaps?

[nige1]

The Danish Bridge Federation has a similar regulation, which has as much relevance to an EBU Swiss Pairs as the WBF regulation [not a WBFLC regulation]. It is difficult to feel any sympathy for opener who was trying to ignore the regulations anyway, even if she ignored a different regulation from the one she thought she was ignoring. She is required to leave her calls on the table until the opening lead is faced, which regulation she was trying to ignore: in practice she was merely ignoring the Law about three passes to end an auction. Despite my lack of sympathy for her, she has not passed, so she is now allowed to call. A tiny PP, perhaps?

Agree with Bluejak. IMO, the director should impose a PP to deter such behaviour. This shouldn't need local-regulation: the law-book itself should specify bidding-box protocol, explicitly: including the necessity to leave the auction-cards exposed until after the opening-lead and auction-explanations.

[mycroft]

Argh, I really wish that this practise was universally met with a small PP (not just in cases where it causes a problem). Okay, so the third pass maybe we can slide, but people do go 1NT-p-3NT-p; pick up cards. And then when it actually goes 1NT-3D-X-p; pick up cards, we can't tell whether they were passing 3Dx to overcaller or 3D undoubled out.

 

And then there's, of course, 1NT-X-p-p; pick up cards. -150? No, -500. "But I wouldn't have passed 1NTx, pass forces XX! It went 1NT-p-p-p and I picked up my cards!"

 

Certainly, the regulation that requires the cards out until the opening leader faces means that this will be noticed - if anything, the "your call" by the supposed "opening leader" will make it clear. But the ACBL has no such regulation, and so...

 

I guess I'm arguing myself back to not letting the third pass slide. It may not help, but at least if *I* say that I didn't notice the double, I can have the TD ask any local to me player if I ever don't put out the third pass.

[mjj29]

I ruled that there had not been a pass after consulting one other TD who agreed. This was much to the surprise of all at the table (hence why I'd consulted) and also to the next three TDs that I asked. By the end the TDs finished off 3-3 on the matter of whether opener had passed due to her action. I must admit it did not occur to me to give out a PP for it.

[jules101]

1N [3♦] X [P]

pick up...

 

 

May any of the other three players point out the auction is not complete at this point as there haven't been three passes?

 

Or is the only person who may point this out the one who is next to bid (ie the 3♦ bidder)?

 

So if the doubler, or partner of the 3♦ bidder, speak up at this point they would now they would now be speaking out of turn, when not their turn to bid?

[blackshoe]

Law 9A1: Unless prohibited by law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

 

There is no prohibition elsewhere in law against drawing attention to this irregularity.

 

BTW:

 

Law 9B1(a): The director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

Law 9B2: No player shall take any action until the director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

[gnasher]

I think this is fairly clear (shows what I know).

 

Neither the Laws not the EBU regulations stipulate a proper form for a pass. Therefore any action that is intended to constitute a pass does, in fact, constitute a pass. Opener intended her action to constitute a pass, so she has passed.

 

If she had deliberately placed a pass card on the table and then said "Oh, I didn't see your double", we wouldn't have let her change her call, would we? I don't see why this is any different.

[gnasher]

And then when it actually goes 1NT-3D-X-p; pick up cards, we can't tell whether they were passing 3Dx to overcaller or 3D undoubled out.

Can't we just ask them?

[campboy]

Neither the Laws not the EBU regulations stipulate a proper form for a pass. Therefore any action that is intended to constitute a pass does, in fact, constitute a pass. Opener intended her action to constitute a pass, so she has passed.

I think the EBU regulations do give the proper form for a pass: "Starting with the dealer, players place their calls on the table in front of them, from the left and neatly overlapping, so that all calls are visible and faced towards partner."

[blackshoe]

There is also the bit about "calls are made when the bidding card is removed from the box with apparent intent" (that's from memory, so don't shoot me if it's slightly off). It follows that if no card is removed from the box, no call has been made.

[gnasher]

I think the EBU regulations do give the proper form for a pass: "Starting with the dealer, players place their calls on the table in front of them, from the left and neatly overlapping, so that all calls are visible and faced towards partner."

That's true, so East's action was an improperly formed attempt to pass.

 

Suppose that East had said "Pass", as players sometimes do when they think it's the last call in the auction. Would we allow her to substitute another call? If not, I don't see why we would allow one here. The two situations seem equivalent to me.

[campboy]

I don't think that the two situations are the same. The OB also specifically says that, when not using bidding boxes, a player may pass by saying "pass" or "no bid", so there is certainly more reason to think that these actions constitute passes even when using bidding boxes. It is not quite clear whether spoken calls are considered made when playing with bidding boxes, though the wording of law 18F suggests to me that any "different methods of making calls" which may be authorised supplement, rather than replace, the methods described in the laws.

 

I would like to be able to rule that the player had passed, since otherwise she is gaining by not following procedure, but unfortunately I can't convince myself that it is legal to do so. Perhaps it is worth us writing to the L&EC suggesting that a regulation to cover improperly-made bids would be helpful.

[mjj29]

I would like to be able to rule that the player had passed, since otherwise she is gaining by not following procedure, but unfortunately I can't convince myself that it is legal to do so. Perhaps it is worth us writing to the L&EC suggesting that a regulation to cover improperly-made bids would be helpful.

That is precisely what I and the other TDs at the event thought. Given that there was no appeal and so the case won't reach the L&EC via that route I have written them to suggest discussing it to establish precedent for future.

[mfa1010]

I think the pass was made. I agree with gnasher's thoughts. There is no clear regulation that covers this. Picking up or tapping on the bidding cards is universally understood as a pass. So it becomes binding to do so just as if she has flashed the green card (which only a minority does in practice - sad but true).

[bluejak]

I am unhappy with the view that picking up the cards is "universally" understood to be a pass. Certainly when I have played in other jurisdictions it may be true, and that happens fairly frequently, but such jurisdictions do not require the bidding cards to be left on the table.

 

In England players do not generally remove the bidding cards as a pass, in fact it is difficult to remember the last time it happened. They remove the bidding cards when they consider the bidding has already ended, so removing the bidding cards in England pretty universally means the player does not consider they have a call to make.

 

Do not misunderstand, I do not mean everyone leaves the cards down as required by regulation. Quite commonly people do not. But removal of cards just means they cannot be bothered to follow the regulation [or perhaps are ignorant of it] but it certainly does not indicate a pass.

[gnasher]

For the purpose of this ruling, I don't think it's relevant whether there is a universal meaning for the the act of picking up one's cards. In this case opener definitely intended it to mean "Pass (and I think this is the end of the auction)".

[jules101]

For the purpose of this ruling, I don't think it's relevant whether there is a universal meaning for the the act of picking up one's cards. In this case opener definitely intended it to mean "Pass (and I think this is the end of the auction)".

 

How can it be the end of the auction?

 

The 3D bidder has another bid (if they wish!)

[gnasher]

How can it be the end of the auction?

 

The 3D bidder has another bid (if they wish!)

I didn't say that it was the end of the auction. I said that opener thought it was the end of the auction. If you read the original post, you will see that opener had not noticed responder's double.

[blackshoe]

As I read EBU regulations, she has not passed. She has, however, violated two stipulations of those regulations: (1) it was her turn to call, she did not call, (2) believing the auction to be over, she did not leave her bidding cards on the table until the opening lead was faced. For these reasons, I am going to allow her to make a call other than pass if she so desires, but I am also going to issue a PP to remind her to do it correctly in future. 10% of a top seems adequate. I will also inform the other side of their right to appeal (Law 83). Hm. Is the L&E committee an "appropriate committee" in the sense of Law 83?

 

I don't particularly care what "everybody knows" or what this player thought she was doing. I do care what the laws and regulations say.

[mjj29]

As I read EBU regulations, she has not passed. She has, however, violated two stipulations of those regulations: (1) it was her turn to call, she did not call, (2) believing the auction to be over, she did not leave her bidding cards on the table until the opening lead was faced. For these reasons, I am going to allow her to make a call other than pass if she so desires, but I am also going to issue a PP to remind her to do it correctly in future. 10% of a top seems adequate.

 

Note that as for (1) the bidding has, at the point I was called, not progressed past her, so it's not obvious that she's not just still thinking. As for (2), the regulation says "should" which "a violation is an infraction but it's not normally penalised". As such I did not issue a PP. Perhaps I should have done.

[blackshoe]

I was aware of the "should" wording. I think a PP is indicated anyway.

 

If she was still thinking, why did she pick up her bidding cards?