[blml] 25 something ?

[ton kooijman]

> On Behalf Of ton kooijman
> Sven:
> 
> They both believed they were
> in the position of making the closing PASS ......
> 
> 
> ton:
> 
> That is not the case. In the case described and the one I had a long time
> ago the player thought the auction being closed by three passes from LHO,
> partner and RHO.
> That is the crux of the case.
> 
> ton

Oops, sure - yes that is indeed a difference! 

So what is the legal effect of discovering after the play that the auction
was never "closed" while all the other players at the table assumed that the
player in question in fact made his closing PASS while he believed three
passes in a row had already been made by the other players?

Ton:

The nice thing here is that no other player assumed that the player in question made a closing pass:  The player made a cue bid (5♦)on the way to 6 or 7 spades, LHO doubled, partner passed, RHI passed and he, in a blackout assuming the auction being closed asked his partner: 'have you become ill?' and put his bidding cards in his box. His LHO within a split second made the first lead. 

I don't have a clear answer on your question what the legal effect of this irregularity has to be. I tend to give an artificial adjusted score. 

A similar situation exists when playing with screens the tray isn't pushed through the aperture completely. One side bids up to 4S, tray to the other side where partner cuebids 5♣ and next player passes. Tray back but this call isn't visible at the other side and they expect the auction to be closed.