Disputed double

[VixTD]

There is a difficulty in distinguishing [3A] from [3B] because it depends on a players habits, which will not be known by the opponents or the TD. The regulations seek to avoid having to make this distinction unless absolutely necessary.

 

The unfortunate consequences of the regulation are

1. a player picks up their cards as in [3A], not in the pass-out position, retains the right to call
   
2. a player picks up their cards as in [3B], but is in pass-out position, may lose the right to call
   

I appreciate your efforts to clarify the regulation, but the rationale for it still escapes me. If a non-orthodox means of making a call is condoned in some situations, why is it not in all? The TD is expected to work out how a player came to make an insufficient bid, so I don't see why this situation should be any different. In both cases the TD should try to find out whether the action was intended as a pass, and if so, rule that the player has passed. If the player can convince the TD that they were just clearing away their bidding cards at what they erroneously thought was the end of the auction, they should be told that they are supposed to leave them out until the opening lead has been faced (in EBU jurisdictions, at least), that the auction is not yet complete, and that it is their turn to call.

[RMB1]

I appreciate your efforts to clarify the regulation,

Thanks. I hope I am not simply defending the indefensible.

 

but the rationale for it still escapes me. If a non-orthodox means of making a call is condoned in some situations, why is it not in all? The TD is expected to work out how a player came to make an insufficient bid, so I don't see why this situation should be any different. In both cases the TD should try to find out whether the action was intended as a pass, and if so, rule that the player has passed.

 

I would much rather the insufficient bid law did not require the TD to find a players intention when making an irregularity. I do not think the requirements of one law (which many think does not work) should not be use to create a precedent for all laws.

 

I think the aim is to minimize the occasions when we have to rule based on uncorroboratable (self-serving?) statements from one side.

Edited September 19, 2014 by RMB1