[blml] 25 something ?

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <herman at hdw.be>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 2:28 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ?


>I agree with Ton:
>
> ton kooijman wrote:
>> Interesting case which I had myself a very long time ago (30?). I made a
>> similar decision as the described one, which went to our national appeal
>> committee. This committee decided that taking away the bidding cards can 
>> not
>> be considered as a pass, unless it is meant as a pass. So the auction is 
>> not
>> closed then.
>
> The fact that we allow people to take away their bidding cards in
> stead of making a final pass, and rule that this is a pass, does not
> mean that anyone who takes away their bidding cards has passed. That
> would mean that every auction contains four extra passes.

When the condition is set that the player is in pass out chair and he 
restores his cards to the box, then there are no more turns remaining for 
the other players.

I find it curious that the AC invokes the principle 'can't' when humans can 
indeed intercede with legislation that says 'can'.  The normal path for this 
'can't'  business arrives at the situation where a player takes a 3S bid 
from the box and puts it where his other calls have been made, but, lo and 
behold later in the auction it turns out that no 3S bid could havebeen made 
as the player hadn't meant to bid it.

there is a great amount of good to be said for accountability.  The putting 
of a 3S on the table at his turn is every bit an action of bidding 
[irrespective of intent]; and the removal of bidding cards at his turn in 
the passout position is an action too [irrespective of  intent] that looks 
like a pass.  The law recognizes euphemisms in calling dummy's cards- high; 
club; ten- that specify the course of action even though the player may have 
misunderstood what he has done.  There are other contexts- such as bidding 
boxes where euphemism can exist.  Such accomodations of the human animal 
improve the progress of the game.

regards
roger pewick

> So indeed, this player has not passed and the bidding is technically
> not over. Depending on when he realizes this, he shall be allowed to
> make a further call.
>
> Since he only realized this when the play was half-way, there is not a
> lot we can do. Technically, we have seen 20 cards during the auction,
> but since the defenders cannot be expected to know the bidding was not
> over, I suppose I rule that "declarer" has accepted that play is under
> way and therefor rule the contract to stand.
>
>> I still consider that decision as a better one than mine, which means 
>> that I
>> do not agree with the answers given.
>>
>> The fact that play continued of course complicates it, but I restrict 
>> myself
>> to the question: 'did the player pass?' No, he didn't; my opinion for a 
>> very
>> long time (30 years?).
>>
>> Another strange case. We play teams competitions somewhere. For a long 
>> range
>> of years consisting of 28 boards. This year on page 43 (or whatever) in
>> small letters it says that 24 boards are played. A match is played 
>> without
>> realising this, so they play 28 boards. What should be done?

I have a couple of thoughts.  One not vey relevant- Did the TD contribute to 
the situation as by putting out boards for 28 rather than 24?

The relevant one is that when a team plays 28 boards have they not played 
24?  As the CoC specify the playing of 24 has not that condition been met?

>> I am mainly interested in a legal approach and less in a pragmatic 
>> solution.
>> The regulations do touch the problem of playing less boards (which is
>> possible) but (of course) not this case.
>>
>> ton
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org 
>> [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]
>> On Behalf Of Sven Pran
>> Sent: woensdag 29 november 2006 0:48
>> To: blml
>> Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ?
>>
>>
>>>On Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Lafay
>>>Here is what happened yesterday (Teams, high level but played in clubs
>>>with no director immediately available, although one can be reached by
>>>phone if necessary).
>>>
>>>2D   -    2S   -
>>>3S   -    4S   -
>>>4NT  -    5C   -
>>>5D   X    -    -
>>>??
>>>
>>>not that it matters very much, but here is the meaning :
>>>
>>>2D was (french style) forcing to game, 2S showed a major Ace, 3S
>>>natural, 4S a fit but nothing else interesting to mention, 4NT asked
>>>about kings, 5C showed (as expected) none, 5D was a further enquiry,
>>>probably related to the SQ, pass over the double of 5D denied anything
>>>else of even remote value.
>>>
>>>The trouble is that opener did not notice LHO's double and thought that
>>>responder had a (very) blind spot and had passed 5D ! So he was under
>>>the impression that the auction was over, and that he was playing 5D. He
>>>therefore removed his bidding cards, which is of course normally viewed
>>>as meaning "pass". As a matter of fact, he is (as the vast majority of
>>>players) unaware of the various possibilities where a "call" can be
>>>changed, he did not try to change anything when he realized he was
>>>actually playing in 5D *doubled*, went 3 down for a loss of 14IMPs (6S
>>>was on thanks to the 2-2 split, but was not bid at the other table).
>>>
>>>I was wondering what the ruling should be if the player had tried to do
>>>something when he realized what was going on : he did not really called
>>>(he did not even know he had to call !), so if we judge that removing
>>>the bidding card is a "pass", then it should be inadvertent, although
>>>not a "slip of the hand", shouldn't it ?
>>
>>
>> Law 21A: A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of 
>> his
>> own misunderstanding.
>>
>> I would rule that he passed and that his pass was NOT inadvertent, it was
>> based on his own misunderstanding, and that's it.
>>
>> Although removing the bidding cards for an assumed final pass is 
>> incorrect
>> procedure, it is so commonly used that I shall not accept the technical
>> argument to the effect that the player doing so did not intend to pass if 
>> it
>> was his turn to call.
>>
>> If he becomes aware of his mistake before the opening lead is made I 
>> would
>> allow him a Law 25B change of call {it will probably be L25B2(b)2, after
>> which he cannot receive a score greater than average minus}.
>>
>> Regards Sven