"Is it my lead"

[Lanor Fow]

In a swiss teams even today I got called to the table. There had been two passes since the last bid, then the person in the pass out seat says "Is it my lead?", His partner responds "Have you passed?". At this point the gentleman in the pass out seat realises he still has a call, and the director gets called.

 

How do you rule?

 

(Apologies I didn't note down the auction)

[blackshoe]

He hasn't made a call, so the auction's not over.

[aguahombre]

Since the question implies he believes the auction is over, and the only way the auction could end would be if he had passed, the opponents might have a valid point that by answering a question with a question partner could have suggested that he not pass (even though he thought he had).

 

So, if he doesn't pass, we have a ruling to make. If he does pass, we should look at the auction and answer his question for him -- then go back to our knitting.

[sfi]

Would it help if his partner had said "the auction isn't over yet", "not unless you pass" or something similar? It seems to me that partner's question is neutral and entirely reasonable. In fact, had he led (face down), I would find it normal for partner to confirm that he had in fact intended to pass.

 

The other way he could believe the auction is over is if he thought there had been at least three passes and wasn't really paying attention.

 

So, the auction continues with his call.

[aguahombre]

It would help if, during the auction or the play, the partner of the person asking a question is not the one who answers that question.

 

That includes, "Any questions, Partner?" after the face down opening lead. That question is not part of the protocol. If partner of the opening leader has a question, he just asks the question.

[sfi]

It would help if, during the auction or the play, the partner of the person asking a question is not the one who answers that question.

 

All well and good, but partner has the right to do something to stop him from facing a card during the auction. How would you suggest his partner does that?

 

That includes, "Any questions, Partner?" after the face down opening lead. That question is not part of the protocol. If partner of the opening leader has a question, he just asks the question.

 

Not really sure how this is relevant to this situation. It's also fairly innocuous.

[WellSpyder]

It might help if we could agree on the most neutral way to ask the question that opening leader's partner wanted to ask, but "are you passing?" sounds OK to me.

 

Something rather similar happened to me a few weeks ago. My partner and I had agreed hearts in the auction, and I then cue-bid 4♠. I was somewhat surprised when partner passed this, but mentally shrugged my shoulders and started to write down the contract while waiting for the opening lead. My partner interrupted with "what are you doing, partner?", and only then did I realise that LHO had actually doubled the cue-bid. The TD was called, and ruled that the auction wasn't over, but that there might be UI considerations to take into account. Of course, the wording chosen by my partner in this case was unfortunate - I assumed partner meant "what call are you making?", but oppo assumed he was saying "what the **** are you doing passing this out?" In any case, it was clear to me that passing out a doubled cue-bid was not an LA!

 

I think exactly the same ruling applies to the current case. The auction clearly isn't over, but there is potential UI. I think in the current case it is extremely unlikely that partner's question will demonstrably suggest one action over another, but that argument can come later. In the meantime, the auction continues....

[weejonnie]

EBU white Book

 

"Some players do not always complete the auction properly by laying a pass card on the table in the pass out seat. Usually this does not cause a problem. When a player acts in such a way as to indicate they have passed and an opening lead is faced they have passed. An action may be deemed by the TD to be a pass in the pass out seat (e.g. general ‘waft’ of the hand, tapping cards already there, picking up the cards)."

 

Would writing down the final contract count as a pass in these circumstances.

[campboy]

EBU white Book

 

"Some players do not always complete the auction properly by laying a pass card on the table in the pass out seat. Usually this does not cause a problem. When a player acts in such a way as to indicate they have passed and an opening lead is faced they have passed. An action may be deemed by the TD to be a pass in the pass out seat (e.g. general ‘waft’ of the hand, tapping cards already there, picking up the cards)."

 

Would writing down the final contract count as a pass in these circumstances.

I would think it could do, but that regulation isn't relevant in this case since the opening lead has not yet been faced.

[helene_t]

Well it may be relevant, if asking the question "is it my lead?" counts as an example of "acting in such a way as to indicate they have passed".

[barmar]

Well it may be relevant, if asking the question "is it my lead?" counts as an example of "acting in such a way as to indicate they have passed".

The regulation says they have to "act in such a way" AND "the opening lead is faced". If only one of those takes place, the regulation doesn't apply.

 

For instance, if he makes a face-down lead, and asks "Any questions?", you could say "Why are you leading when the auction isn't over yet?"

[Vampyr]

It would help if, during the auction or the play, the partner of the person asking a question is not the one who answers that question.

 

Yes, partner could have kept his mouth shut and let the opponents reply.

 

That includes, "Any questions, Partner?" after the face down opening lead. That question is not part of the protocol. If partner of the opening leader has a question, he just asks the question.

 

Yes, of course the partner can wait until it is his turn, but before the opening lead is faced he may wish to ask about the auction while the bidding cards are still visible. This is why a pause here is helpful.

[blackshoe]

In England, maybe. In North America, by the time the opening lead is made face down, the bidding cards are long gone. :(

[pran]

In England, maybe. In North America, by the time the opening lead is made face down, the bidding cards are long gone. :(

But may be restored on request by presumed declarer or either of his opponents in order to comply with Law 41B?

[blackshoe]

But may be restored on request by presumed declarer or either of his opponents in order to comply with Law 41B?

I've never seen that happen, and I've never seen anyone ask for it to happen in conjunction with any 41B request. Once the bidding cards are back in the box, they stay there, unless there's been an "assumption" about the auction that does not conform to the laws, e.g. 1NT-P-3NT-pick up the bidding cards. One might point out that the auction is not yet over. One might then call the director. I've given up doing it in clubs though — they don't learn. :(

[barmar]

But may be restored on request by presumed declarer or either of his opponents in order to comply with Law 41B?

I've never seen the cards restored for this, someone just recites the auction.

 

Sometimes when a complex auction is over, one of the defenders will say "please leave the bidding cards out" so they can see the auction while it's explained (I suppose declarer might also request this in a competitive auction, but I can't recall this ever coming up).

[blackshoe]

I've never seen the cards restored for this, someone just recites the auction.

 

Sometimes when a complex auction is over, one of the defenders will say "please leave the bidding cards out" so they can see the auction while it's explained (I suppose declarer might also request this in a competitive auction, but I can't recall this ever coming up).

I've tried that. It usually doesn't stop people from putting them away, or at least starting to do so.

[mycroft]

I find "please leave the auction out" uncomfortable. First, of course, because about 50% of the time the request is ignored, and my re-request tends to sound aggressive. But the real reason is "hey, partner, I do have questions - you might be interested in the auction before you lead, too"...not that I would do that, but it sure looks like that when partner *does* now ask for explanations before her lead.

.

But with the ACBL style, it's the least of evils.

 

What would be interesting in the "doubled cue-bid" case is "so, what contract did you write down?" The one time I picked up my cards instead of third pass I wrote down 3♦. Of course, the auction ended 3♦-x-p-p-pickup. I was quite indignant about this one (but didn't fight it...it was a club game, and the worst director in the city, and it wasn't going to make a difference to my further bidding - might have changed the play, but that's my fault for not seeing it, I guess).

[Lanor Fow]

At the table I ruled that the player still had a call. I didn't think the way the question was asked had lead to any usable UI, and indeed I wasn't called back on that issue. Noone seemed particulaly unhappy with the ruling given. I got the impression that whilst noone at the table knew what the ruling should have been (given the experience of one of the players, I imagine this was unusual for him) noone would have particulaly objected either way (not of course that that should affect the ruling given).

 

Given that this was the EBU, the bidding cards were still on the table, so this wasn't simplified/complicated by removal of said cards, which it might have been in other juristictions.

[VixTD]

The regulation says they have to "act in such a way" AND "the opening lead is faced". If only one of those takes place, the regulation doesn't apply.

I dislike the wording of this regulation because I think it misleads people to think that it applies only when the opening lead has been faced. If a player "acts in such a way" before the opening lead has been faced, the director is still quite likely to rule that they have passed. To do so would not be against the regulations.

[barmar]

I find "please leave the auction out" uncomfortable. First, of course, because about 50% of the time the request is ignored, and my re-request tends to sound aggressive. But the real reason is "hey, partner, I do have questions - you might be interested in the auction before you lead, too"...not that I would do that, but it sure looks like that when partner *does* now ask for explanations before her lead.

It's hardly ever ignored in my experience. But I've learned over the years from these forums that there are apparently far fewer jerks playing bridge in New England than the rest of the world, because I rarely experience the kinds of annoying behavior everyone else says is commonplace.

 

The request generally only happens in complex auctions with lots of alerts. It should come as no surprise to anyone that we're going to have questions. Also, the UI is only an issue if it's the partner of the opening leader who asks for them to be left out -- half the time it's the opening leader himself.

[campboy]

I dislike the wording of this regulation because I think it misleads people to think that it applies only when the opening lead has been faced. If a player "acts in such a way" before the opening lead has been faced, the director is still quite likely to rule that they have passed. To do so would not be against the regulations.

I think the regulation is fine as it is. The next sentence does go on to say what should happen if the opening lead has not yet been faced, where the TD may rule that a pass has been made, but doesn't have to.

 

So if an opening lead has not been faced, I would investigate whether the player did originally intend his action to constitute a pass. If he did I will rule that he has actually passed; he can't get away with tapping the pass card, then changing his mind and substituting another call. But if a player starts to pick up his bidding cards because he thinks the auction is already over, I see no need to rule that this constitutes a pass.

[mycroft]

It's hardly ever ignored in my experience. But I've learned over the years from these forums that there are apparently far fewer jerks playing bridge in New England than the rest of the world, because I rarely experience the kinds of annoying behavior everyone else says is commonplace.

Okay, "ignored" is too strong a term. Any implication of deliberate intent was unintended.

 

Habit is such that, after "please leave the auction out" [pass], at least half the time, at least one player has already scrunched up enough of their bidding cards as to lose at least one round of the auction. "Please leave the auction out" "Oh sorry." "Please *fix* the auction..." "sorry".

 

Of course there are also those who have the cards collected before I've passed, never mind requested that the auction stay out...

And those who say "why?" Or treat the request as a serious breach of normal procedure. Those are the same who, when asked to explain the auction, explain the one call they think I care about (if not ask what call I care about). "Continue, please" [explain the next bid] "Continue, please..."

 

It's not "jerk", it's lack of experience, lack of training, and frankly, lack of people who know enough to care about things like this. Most pairs either don't ask, or ask about every call at their next turn (by rote - they don't really understand what they're being told either). So the situation doesn't make sense to them.

 

Again, any implication that there is any malice involved is bad construction on my part. That doesn't make what happens any less annoying, though.

The request generally only happens in complex auctions with lots of alerts. It should come as no surprise to anyone that we're going to have questions.

You'd think, wouldn't you? Seriously, it just doesn't happen often enough to them (as opposed to the ask at the call) for them to understand. And they *certainly* see no reason to explain without being asked.

Also, the UI is only an issue if it's the partner of the opening leader who asks for them to be left out -- half the time it's the opening leader himself.

True. It only really bothers me when I'm in the passout seat, true.

[gwnn]

What would be interesting in the "doubled cue-bid" case is "so, what contract did you write down?" The one time I picked up my cards instead of third pass I wrote down 3♦. Of course, the auction ended 3♦-x-p-p-pickup. I was quite indignant about this one (but didn't fight it...it was a club game, and the worst director in the city, and it wasn't going to make a difference to my further bidding - might have changed the play, but that's my fault for not seeing it, I guess).

Sorry could you make a simple flowchart or a cartoon on what exactly the auction was and who picked up what? There was something with 3Dx or 3D, you picked up your cards instead of passing, you got upset, but which side were you on and what happened?

[mycroft]

Sorry.

 

I *never* pull my cards to pass - I *always* put out the last pass (even when second-to-pass doesn't).

 

One auction went something something 3♦ (by me) AP (in my mind), so I picked up my cards and played 3♦.

 

According to people who can actually tell red from green cards that day, it went ...3♦ (by me) X P P and then I picked up my cards.

 

Why my partner thought there was nothing out of the ordinary boggles me to this day, but it's not her place to stop me from being stupid, really.

 

It was only after I went down (one or two, can't remember now) and I announced the score that I was told it was doubled. I said, it couldn't have been, it went all pass. No, they said, two passes and you picked up your cards, therefore passing.

 

Yeah...no. But, again, my fault for not paying attention.