Mixing up stop and double

[robdixon87]

Another interesting one that also turned up near the end of a long Swiss Teams evening at my local club.

 

South has decided to double East in their final contract, but accidentally puts the stop card down instead of a double. West and North both pass, and then East notices what has happened. As soon as South sees what is in front of them they realise it is the wrong thing! Seeing as the stop card is not anything to do with the Laws, is this just a regular pass out of turn by West which has been accepted by North? Or can the stop be replaced with a double treating it as an 'unintended call (even though it's not really a call)'? The two susequent passes suggest that actually three people at the table have mistaken the stop card for a double.

 

I suppose it doesn't matter so much as if it is an accepted pass out of rotation, then East will pass (and we get the situation where three passes after a bid doesn't end the auction - hurrah!) and South might manage to put the correct card down this time.

 

Just interested on what others think, or if you've seen this before.

[aguahombre]

I know what I would do. Might not be SB approved, but seems to be a practical solution:

 

South thought the red thing was a double. From what OP states, West thought it was a double and so did North when they passed. It was a double; East's turn to call.

[campboy]

South has not made a call so there was a pass out of turn.

[helene_t]

Whether we treat the stop card as a double or we treat West's pass as out of turn, the result will be the same, won't it? South will double anyway if he gets another turn.

[Zelandakh]

It is an accepted POOT. If East now passes, all 3 passes are cancelled and the auction reverts back to South (17E2).

[VixTD]

I think it's dangerous to assume what players thought, and even more dangerous to ask them. Players do silly things for all kinds of reasons, not always the most obvious ones.

 

It's an accepted call out of rotation, so carry on from there and apply law 34 if necessary.

[gnasher]

I think it's dangerous to assume what players thought, and even more dangerous to ask them. Players do silly things for all kinds of reasons, not always the most obvious ones.

Why is it dangerous to ask them what they thought? It seems to me that it costs nothing, and may be necessary in case we later have to rule on damage to EW.

 

If, as seems likely, South, West and North all say that they thought it was a double, we rule that it was a double and get on with our lives. If West says that he thought it was a stop card, we rule that his pass was out of turn. If West says that he thought it was a pass card, we rule that his pass was out of turn, and later adjust the score if necessary.

Edited December 6, 2012 by gnasher

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure of the basis for your last statement, Andy. Why do we adjust the score if West thought "stop" was "pass" but not if he thought it was "stop"?

[mycroft]

Now I'm flashing back to the time the opponents complained when I doubled my partner's Alertable call out of turn...

[barmar]

I'm not sure of the basis for your last statement, Andy. Why do we adjust the score if West thought "stop" was "pass" but not if he thought it was "stop"?

Because it's hard to accept that claim -- stop and pass cards don't look at all alike.

 

Maybe if he's color-blind you would rule differently.

[gnasher]

I'm not sure of the basis for your last statement, Andy. Why do we adjust the score if West thought "stop" was "pass" but not if he thought it was "stop"?

I didn't say that we do adjust it. I said we'd adjust the score "if necessary", but I should probably have said "if appropriate".

 

It's not at all likely, but suppose that West thought the stop card was a pass card, NS gained by West's pass out of turn, and South could have known that this could well occur. Wouldn't we adjust the score?

[blackshoe]

I suppose so.

[VixTD]

Why is it dangerous to ask them what they thought? It seems to me that it costs nothing, and may be necessary in case we later have to rule on damage to EW.

 

If, as seems likely, South, West and North all say that they thought it was a double, we rule that it was a double and get on with our lives. If West says that he thought it was a stop card, we rule that his pass was out of turn. If West says that he thought it was a pass card, we rule that his pass was out of turn, and later adjust the score if necessary.

There's no basis in law for introducing imagined calls into an auction. And the danger is in creating a lot of unauthorized information. Suppose West thought it was a double and passed, but North knew that no call had been made and was intending to accept a pass out of rotation by his right-hand opponent?

[iviehoff]

Now I'm flashing back to the time the opponents complained when I doubled my partner's Alertable call out of turn...

25A1 doesn't quite cover that situation. Under 251A an unintended call can be replaced with the call you intended to make. But since you didn't intend to make any call at all, Secretary Bird might argue that you are stuck with the call you made, an out-of-turn inadmissible double, which could have rather nasty rectification. But I've seen it happen many times, and people usually, on noticing what they have in their hand, assuming there has been no subsequent action by the opposition, say something like "this is actually an alert card", and in my experience the opponents always swiftly agree that it is indeed an alert card. The fact that your partner's call was out of turn adds to the confusion. What happened?

[WellSpyder]

The fact that your partner's call was out of turn adds to the confusion. What happened?

I don't think that is what mycroft meant. Rather, if you are going to treat his attempt at alerting with a double card as an inadmissible double, then it is also out of turn.....

[bluejak]

I think it's dangerous to assume what players thought, and even more dangerous to ask them. Players do silly things for all kinds of reasons, not always the most obvious ones.

I dislike the part of this about asking them as a general comment. I think it is correct in this situation, but is often wrong: we often have to ask players.

 

But when faced with a book ruling, we rule by the book. There was a condoned pass out of turn, Law 29A applies, and possibly 17E2.