[blml] 25 something ?

[Herman De Wael]

raija wrote:

> 
> 
> Assuming the lead was not gunshot-fast, 

The way Ton told the story the second time, it may well have been.

> there is nothing illegal or 
> infractious (is this a word...)  in taking advantage of an opponents error. 

But the problem here is that the opponent had not made an error - 
except one in his mind. He has not passed, and therefor the lead is 
during the bidding period. There can be no question of taking 
advantage of an error if that error is not made.

> Nor does it - or should it - matter what the bidder "wanted" or "intended" 
> to do.  He _did_ what he _did_, ie. in the OP case passed and ended up 
> playing in a cuebid.  

No, he did NOT pass. He took away his bidding cards, which is the 
correct way of acting once (you think) the bidding is over. All of you 
may well rule that taking away the bidding cards means passing, but 
only if that is what a player intends to do.

> Things happen. Inattention is often costly and the 
> laws should cater to those who are inattentive of the game, IMO. 
> 

I agree - but then so are the opponents in this case. They have 
misinterpreted their opponent's mistake. They should have asked "did 
you pass?" rather than assume he did.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be