Consecutive pass outs?

[Coelacanth]

Swiss teams

 

Board 1 was passed out. As the players returned their cards to the board, discussed who might be able to make what, etc., the TD arrived at the table to speak with East, who happened to be the tournament chairperson. They had a brief conversation, during which all the players took their cards from Board 2 and began the auction.

 

After three passes, North (me) grabbed and briefly displayed a pass card and began to return my cards to the board. East immediately protested. "Wait, what happened?"

 

As you have by now figured out, East's pass card from the Board 1 auction remained on the table. After sorting his cards on Board 2, South saw the card, assumed it was East's call on Board 2, and duly passed.

 

The TD was recalled to the table. How would you rule?

[mgoetze]

(1) Are you sure this is a simple ruling?

(2) Was East in fact the dealer on the second board?

[blackshoe]

1. This crowd can make even a simple ruling complicated.

2. Yes, unless the board did not conform to Law 2.

 

I would cancel the three passes starting with South's, and allow East to make a call, the auction proceeding normally from there. Law 17E2. Knowledge that none of the other 3 players has an opening hand is authorized to EW, not to NS (Law 16D).

[Coelacanth]

I would cancel the three passes starting with South's, and allow East to make a call, the auction proceeding normally from there. Law 17E2. Knowledge that none of the other 3 players has an opening hand is authorized to EW, not to NS (Law 16D).

 

This is a more thorough ruling than that which we received at the table. You could make a case that West may have made a Law 29A acceptance of South's pass, so that the auction stands as pass pass pass with East now to call. In this case there would be no UI to worry about.

 

The ruling we were given was along the lines of "ok, let's start over. East, go ahead and make your normal bid and we'll let the auction proceed normally. Call me back at the end if you think there's still a problem."

 

UI issues turned out to be irrelevant. East had a strong NT, and bid up to 4♥ after a transfer sequence. Perhaps still distracted by all the confusion, she badly misplayed the end position and went one off.

[hrothgar]

I would cancel the three passes starting with South's, and allow East to make a call, the auction proceeding normally from there. Law 17E2. Knowledge that none of the other 3 players has an opening hand is authorized to EW, not to NS (Law 16D).

 

This creates all sorts of UI issues...

 

It seems more practical to rule that there was an accepted pass out of turn.

 

(Admittedly, West didn't make an informed decision to accept the pass out of turn, but West was equally to blame)

[jhenrikj]

This is a simple ruling. South has called out of rotation, accepted by west's pass. East is now to bid after pass-pass-pass. 17E2 does not apply because there has not been a call followed by three passes. The pass card forgotten by east from the last board is not a call made on the next board.

[shintaro]

(1) Are you sure this is a simple ruling?

(2) Was East in fact the dealer on the second board?

 

 

 

 

 

?????????????

 

Is not East ALWAYS Dealer on Board 2 ????? ;)

[campboy]

This is a more thorough ruling than that which we received at the table. You could make a case that West may have made a Law 29A acceptance of South's pass, so that the auction stands as pass pass pass with East now to call. In this case there would be no UI to worry about.

That would be my ruling.

[mgoetze]

Is not East ALWAYS Dealer on Board 2 ????? ;)

 

I wasn't sure whether he meant board 2 literally, or whether it was simply the second board of the round.

[pran]

This again is a situation that is a matter of regulation and not of law.

 

According to the bid box regulations I know a player is responsible for any bid card left in such a position as if it has been used by him to make a call.

 

Thus South is in his right to assume that East (as dealer) has called when he (South), after having looked at his hand sees a bid card on the table in front of East.

[mrdct]

This is a simple ruling. South has called out of rotation, accepted by west's pass. East is now to bid after pass-pass-pass. 17E2 does not apply because there has not been a call followed by three passes. The pass card forgotten by east from the last board is not a call made on the next board.

I agree with this ruling.

 

East hasn't made a pass on Board 2 if she simply hadn't picked up her pass card from Board 1, so this is a simple case of South opening out of turn and West accpeting it and everything proceeds normally from there.

 

With that ruling there is quite an interesting AI/UI situation as East knows that West can't scrounge-up a 3rd seat opening at favourable vul which could help East quite a bit if defending or having to judge in the auction whether or not to invite game/slam and as this information relates to an infraction (paying insufficient attention to the game) it's probably UI. Similarly, South knows that North doesn't have a 4th seat red vs green opening (rule of 15 and all that sort of stuff) which again is extra information that South wouldn't have gained if he's not opened out of turn.

 

As blackshoe said, this group can easily turn a simple ruling into a complex one!

[Vampyr]

This again is a situation that is a matter of regulation and not of law.

 

According to the bid box regulations I know a player is responsible for any bid card left in such a position as if it has been used by him to make a call.

 

Thus South is in his right to assume that East (as dealer) has called when he (South), after having looked at his hand sees a bid card on the table in front of East.

 

Yes, but an exception should be made here. East was distracted by official tournament business, and had not really completed Board 1 and moved on to Board 2.

[blackshoe]

Funny, the bid box regulations I know (the ACBL's) don't say anything about players being responsible as Pran suggests.

 

I ruled as I did because it is my opinion, based on the information in the OP, that none of the players at the table were paying attention, so West most certainly did not "accept" the BOOT — he simply passed in what he thought was his turn, after his partner and RHO passed. Yes there's UI now. Tough. Not my job to ensure there isn't.

[Bbradley62]

I ruled as I did because it is my opinion, based on the information in the OP, that none of the players at the table were paying attention, so West most certainly did not "accept" the BOOT — he simply passed in what he thought was his turn, after his partner and RHO passed. Yes there's UI now. Tough. Not my job to ensure there isn't.

But you're still ruling based on 17E2? As jhenrikj pointed out, this situation does not meet the criteria of that Law:

When a call has been followed by three passes the auction does not end if one of those passes was out of rotation, depriving a player of his right to call at that turn.

If East's "pass" is a call, then none of the other three passes were out of turn; if East's "pass" is not a call, then there is no call followed by three passes. 17E2 would apply if, say, East opened 1N, then West, North and East passed. In that case, South was deprived of his chance to call.

[mrdct]

Funny, the bid box regulations I know (the ACBL's) don't say anything about players being responsible as Pran suggests.

 

I ruled as I did because it is my opinion, based on the information in the OP, that none of the players at the table were paying attention, so West most certainly did not "accept" the BOOT — he simply passed in what he thought was his turn, after his partner and RHO passed. Yes there's UI now. Tough. Not my job to ensure there isn't.

I think you are right that nobody at the table was paying attention, but that doesn't mean that South can undo his BOOT. Once South has made his BOOT, the onus passes to West to be paying attention and if West fails to realise that East's pass card belongs to the previous board that's just bad luck for him too. Under Law 29A, when West passes he has forfeited any right to rectification and the auction proceeds normally from that point.

 

Interestingly the ACBL Bidding Box Regulations seem to be silent as to the correct procedure for the disposition of bidding cards at the end of the auction, so it might be difficult to ping East for any irregularity other than the failure to pay sufficient attention to the game.

[mamos]

Swiss teams

 

Board 1 was passed out. As the players returned their cards to the board, discussed who might be able to make what, etc., the TD arrived at the table to speak with East, who happened to be the tournament chairperson. They had a brief conversation, during which all the players took their cards from Board 2 and began the auction.

 

After three passes, North (me) grabbed and briefly displayed a pass card and began to return my cards to the board. East immediately protested. "Wait, what happened?"

 

As you have by now figured out, East's pass card from the Board 1 auction remained on the table. After sorting his cards on Board 2, South saw the card, assumed it was East's call on Board 2, and duly passed.

 

The TD was recalled to the table. How would you rule?

[mamos]

He He

 

This sort of thing has happened to me as TD.

 

Lesson 1 - when auction goes All Pass (someone at the table - ie you or me, (knowing of the consequences of abandoned Pass cards), should make sure that the Green little things all go back into their respective boxes.

 

I don't believe East has called on this hand, South's OBOT has been accepted and so I'd let East bid now. WTP?

UI? I frankly think it's all a bit unlikely and esoteric - fun to discuss but in the real world????

 

As I recall, my auction was a bit more complex because East was dealer and opened with Pass - It was South whose card was on the table from the Pass Out board and so West "opened the bidding" when it was South's turn to call.

[blackshoe]

But you're still ruling based on 17E2? As jhenrikj pointed out, this situation does not meet the criteria of that Law:

 

If East's "pass" is a call, then none of the other three passes were out of turn; if East's "pass" is not a call, then there is no call followed by three passes. 17E2 would apply if, say, East opened 1N, then West, North and East passed. In that case, South was deprived of his chance to call.

 

<grumble> God damned Secretary Birds </grumble>

 

Okay, fine. East did not make a call. 17E2 does not apply. What are you going to do?

[jhenrikj]

<grumble> God damned Secretary Birds </grumble>

 

Okay, fine. East did not make a call. 17E2 does not apply. What are you going to do?

 

What do you usually do when the bidding goes pass-pass-pass? East is in 4th hand and may now bid, nothing else to it.

[blackshoe]

There was a call out of turn. Whatever you're going to do, you have to deal with that under the laws of the game. Of course, mrdct has already given us the correct law: 29A. Fair enough.

[bluejak]

This creates all sorts of UI issues...

 

It seems more practical to rule that there was an accepted pass out of turn.

 

(Admittedly, West didn't make an informed decision to accept the pass out of turn, but West was equally to blame)

I think we should rule as per the Law book, not as per what is more practical.