Year End Congress 3

[gnasher]

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.

It was obvious that she wasn't still thinking, because the act of picking up her bidding cards was plainly *intended* to represent a pass. (Does anybody actually have any doubt about this?)

[mfa1010]

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.

That is nothing to be ashamed of. Just kidding. :P

 

But do the regulations actually say directly what happens if a player fails to follow the correct procedure for passing? I think they don't, but show me if I am wrong about this.

 

So we don't know what should happen. We can only interpret, and ruling that there was no pass is just one out of several possible interpretations of the imprecise rules. A different possibility is to rule that the intended pass stands but as the player has violated correct procedure she should be warned or penalized.

 

We need to evaluate the situation with all its facts to make a decision. And then I think most points to the latter of the two consequences mentioned above.

[bluejak]

Imprecise rules? Only because people have decided not to take the rules literally.

 

The rules say how a call is made. No call was made per the rules, precisely and pedantically.

 

Now I do not really mind a practical approach to a rule being broken, but to call them imprecise when they were precise and clear seems to be blaming the wrong people.

 

As a matter of practice, a lot of players, probably a majority, do not follow the rules at some time or other. Because we want to keep this game running, because we do not want to drive people away from it, we allow a latitude, quite a great latitude, for minor rule-breaking, but it is unfair to blame the rules as imprecise when they are perfectly precise, not followed, and we are trying to decide what to do when they are not followed, and many people's view is that we should not follow the rules when ruling this case.

 

She did not pass: that's clear and precise.

 

:ph34r:

 

When something should be done, it is normal not to penalise, but to penalise when failure to do it inconveniences another contestant. In this case her failure to follow more than one regulation certainly inconvenienced others and a PP seems routine.

[gnasher]

In this thread I described a situation where a player said "I'm out", and asked if a director could determine that this constituted a pass. A number of people whose views I respect said or implied that he could:

 

GordonTD: maybe, it depends on the circumstances

 

RMB1: I think the TD will accept improper forms of Pass ("I'm out", "swish", knocking) only if it is not to the passer's advantage to do so.

 

FrancesHinden (regarding a different form of words): I think it's just the same ruling as if he'd pulled out a pass card

 

TimG: I'm of the opinion that he has passed

 

Blackshoe: he should treat such remarks and gestures as extraneous, and require the player(s) to make proper calls using their bidding boxes, unless the player involved clearly intended to do something or other, in which case the TD should require that bidding card to be placed.

 

Bluejak: So, the TD has to make a judgement, based on how reasonable it is to interpret whatever happened as a pass and whether it was meant as a pass.

 

Can you explain why this situation is different? Is it because my earlier thread didn't relate to an EBU event but this one does?

 

 

[Edited to include a quote from TimG.]

Edited January 3, 2011 by gnasher