[gnasher]

A player, at his turn to call, in the passout seat, says "I'm out". Does that constitute a pass?

Curiously, the Laws tell us the proper form for a bid, a double or a redouble, but not, so far as I can see, for a pass.

[gordontd]

The proper form for a pass seems to me to have been specified in exactly the same (minimal) manner as that for a double or a redouble in L18A.

L20A and L74C1 also seem to be relevant.

To answer your initial question, I think I would say "maybe, it depends on the circumstances".

It's not uncommon to accept violations of proper form when spoken bidding is used:

"No bid"
"No"
"Four hartleberries"
"Three of the house"

I would put the onus on the caller to ensure that it's not misunderstood and doesn't pass UI. Otherwise, sanctions may be appropriate.

Edit: Having looked further, it seems you were referring to L19 and there you are correct. However, I wonder if that might have been deliberate to allow Brits to say "No bid" rather than "Pass", as the Orange Book permits (without reference to the Laws) in 7C2:
"a player can use “pass” or “no bid” but should not change from one to the other during a session".

This post has been edited by gordontd: 2010-December-02, 14:49

[Bbradley62]

Do you accept tapping the table as a pass?

[Ethel]

Bbradley62, on 2010-December-02, 15:46, said:

Do you accept tapping the table as a pass?

Might not be 100% legal, but most people do accept as a pass. One must be careful tho' as someone may have a nervous habit of drumming their fingers.

[mjj29]

Ethel, on 2010-December-02, 17:34, said:

Might not be 100% legal, but most people do accept as a pass. One must be careful tho' as someone may have a nervous habit of drumming their fingers.

Or they might be trying to alert, one of the accepted methods of which is tapping the table...

Matt

[blackshoe]

Heh. When, after a long absence from bridge, I started playing again in a duplicate club in England, I was surprised that tapping the table was viewed as an acceptable substitute for "alert", but I got used to it. Then I came back to the States, where tapping the table means "pass", not "alert". I was mighty confused for a while.

Personally, I'd just as soon people didn't tap the table, and did put out their pass cards when it's their turn to call, they want to pass, and there have not yet been three consecutive passes.

[gordontd]

Bbradley62, on 2010-December-02, 15:46, said:

Do you accept tapping the table as a pass?

Not in general, no.

[paulg]

Bbradley62, on 2010-December-02, 15:46, said:

Do you accept tapping the table as a pass?

It happens in the local club a lot, normally followed by a folding of the cards and "Your lead". Much rarer even in the local (district) tournaments.

[RMB1]

This is less clear explicit than I remember. I thought the laws allowed regulatory authorities to define proper forms of Pass and the EBU did so.

It appears now that the laws implicity leave the proper form(s) of Pass to regulatory authority and the EBU only does so obliquely, in Orange Book 7C2.

Quote

Just as when passing a player can use “pass” or “no bid” but should not change from one to the other during a session, so players should be consistent in the use of “stop” or “skip bid”.

I think the TD will accept improper forms of Pass ("I'm out", "swish", knocking) only if it is not to the passer's advantage to do so.

Picking up the bidding cards at a players turn to call may be taken as a pass, if the player has a habit of doing so. Apparently, at the Tollemache Q, an auction finished: 4NT (choice of minors), X, P (no preference), P, picks up bidding cards.

The 4NT bidder had not noticed the X and thought the auction was over (muttering "stupid partner"). He was not in the habit of picking up his bidding cards in lieu of a Pass. His partner did not think it was proper to point out that it was the bidder's turn to call and they played in 4NT - declarer only knowing it was doubled when they came to the score.

[campboy]

I normally make the effort to pull out a pass card, but when I do tap in lieu I don't tap the table: I tap one of my previous pass cards. One other improper form that I've seen from time to time: "green".

[gnasher]

I asked this question because of a ruling I heard about. As I understand it, a player in the passout seat thought for a while and then said "I'm out". Then he tried to double, or to substitute a double. Bidding boxes were is use. If it matters, his side was clearly in a forcing-pass situation.

To decide whether to allow the player to double, I think the director had to answer the questions:
- Has the player passed?
- If so, was it unintended?

I'm still not sure of the answer to the first question. Maybe the two questions go hand in hand.

[gwnn]

doesn't it depend on the players? if both sides think the forcing pass is obvious and both sides know that the other side also knows about the forcing pass, I'd think the remark just conveys that he doesn't want to bid on, instead settling for the double? of course he still has to put out the x card on the table. I freely concede that I don't know anything about the relevant laws, just trying to think out loud from a practical point of view.

[blackshoe]

The purpose of bidding boxes in the first place is, as I understand it, to avoid passing of UI via inflection or wording. It seems to me that when bidding boxes are in use, calls are made via the bidding cards, and verbal remarks, gestures or what have you are extraneous. They may (probably do in many cases) convey UI, but they are not calls. Now if the players involved wish to, in effect, make their own table rulings and treat such things as calls, that's their lookout. However, if the TD gets involved, he should treat such remarks and gestures as extraneous, and require the player(s) to make proper calls using their bidding boxes, unless the player involved clearly intended to do something or other, in which case the TD should require that bidding card to be placed.

The answer to Gnasher's first question then, depends on the player's answer to the TD's "what did you mean by 'I'm out'?" If he indicates he meant to pass, then he should be required to put out a pass card. If he indicates he was commenting on his values(!) but did not mean to pass, he should be required to make whatever legal call he intended to make. The comment itself is now a separate issue, may rate a PP, and will probably require the TD remind the player's partner of the UI laws.

[wyman]

Was the player "out" of double cards by any chance? Did he think he was out of X cards?

[FrancesHinden]

In an email, gnasher said that the phrase in question was "I fold" which, to me, is more obviously a substitute for pass.

I don't think the forcing nature of the pass was completely obvious, but the player who said "I fold" had three aces, and the auction was at the 7 level, so I think it's pretty uncontroversial that he would have wanted to double if he was in full command of his faculties.

I think it's just the same ruling as if he'd pulled out a pass card and then said it was unintended, he meant to double: the TD has to rule whether it's a 25A or 25B case and that's the end of it.

[TimG]

gnasher, on 2010-December-03, 12:12, said:

To decide whether to allow the player to double, I think the director had to answer the questions:
- Has the player passed?
- If so, was it unintended?

I'm of the opinion that he has passed; I think the unintended part is much more difficult.

I once opened 1♠ and partner raised to 3♠ (limit). I thought for a bit about whether to make a slam try, eventually decided not to, and passed. A few moments later, I realized that I'd be playing in a partscore as a result. When I passed, I intended to pass from a mechanical perspective, it was not a case of inadvertently saying "pass" instead of "four spades". I thought, temporarily, that "pass" was equivalent to playing 4♠. I then realized my mistake. Even though I hadn't intended to play a partscore, I had intended to pass.

It seems to me that there are two different ways to look at intention: one purely mechanical; the other effectual. In my case, I intended to pass from a mechanical perspective and intended to play 4♠ from an effectual perspective. In your case, I think the player intended to pass from a mechanical perspective and intended to defend a doubled 7-level contract from an effectual perspective.

I do not have any Law reference, but it feels to me like the Laws should allow a change in the case of an unintended mechanical error and not in the case of an unintended effectual error.

[pran]

TimG, on 2010-December-04, 10:08, said:

I'm of the opinion that he has passed; I think the unintended part is much more difficult.

I once opened 1♠ and partner raised to 3♠ (limit). I thought for a bit about whether to make a slam try, eventually decided not to, and passed. A few moments later, I realized that I'd be playing in a partscore as a result. When I passed, I intended to pass from a mechanical perspective, it was not a case of inadvertently saying "pass" instead of "four spades". I thought, temporarily, that "pass" was equivalent to playing 4♠. I then realized my mistake. Even though I hadn't intended to play a partscore, I had intended to pass.

It seems to me that there are two different ways to look at intention: one purely mechanical; the other effectual. In my case, I intended to pass from a mechanical perspective and intended to play 4♠ from an effectual perspective. In your case, I think the player intended to pass from a mechanical perspective and intended to defend a doubled 7-level contract from an effectual perspective.

I do not have any Law reference, but it feels to me like the Laws should allow a change in the case of an unintended mechanical error and not in the case of an unintended effectual error.

The infamous Law 25B2b2 allowed this until 2007.

I have heard (no guarantee that this is correct!) that it was incorporated in the laws after a very senior (and famous) player passed out an unexpected but very disapointing response to a Blacwood 4NT bid instead of just bidding 5 in the agreed trump suit.

The general opinion of WBFLC after a few years of experience with this law was that the cure is far worse than the disease. My own greatest fun as director always was to see the startled expressions on players' faces when I explained to them their option under Law 25B2b2.

[bluejak]

While in Orlando I missed a poor but making slam on the sequence 1♠ - 2♦ - 2NT - - -. 2NT showed 15-20 balanced and was forcing to game. Having decided not to make a slam try I passed. There was a girl a couple of tables away who might have covered herself up better and my partner muttered something about sending her an email telling her to put on a coat.

As to the original question it might be better if everyone passed correctly but the fact is they do not. In last seat I tap a pass card rather than producing a new one. The Danes have a regulation which effectively says they do not approve of the practice but any such method of passing is a pass.

When a player does something instead of passing it is usually clear what he intended, so similar to a claim the TD is rarely involved. When the TD is involved any action apart from the official method is illegal [outside Denmark anyway] so the player is likely to find rulings going against him unless he can demonstrate his intentions to the TD clearly. Even so there may be UI to partner or the effects of misleading actions to opponents.

However, I am somewhat dubious about the presumption that a player has passed form an extraneous comment not usually interpreted as a pass, and I have never known anyone say "I'm out" and intend it as a pass.

So, the TD has to make a judgement, based on how reasonable it is to interpret whatever happened as a pass and whether it was meant as a pass.

Incidentally, Ed, in England when using spoken bidding, tapping the table is the correct legal way to alert.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2010-December-09, 12:28, said:

Incidentally, Ed, in England when using spoken bidding, tapping the table is the correct legal way to alert.

I knew that. I'd forgotten it, but I knew it.

OTOH, tapping the table is neither correct nor legal here for any meaning, even though it happens all the time and anybody who called the director because of it would be looked at as a PITA rather than a bridge player.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-09, 19:21, said:

... would be looked at as a PITA rather than a bridge player.

You write as if the two terms were mutually exclusive: in my experiece there is overlap and even correlation; and for some directors the former seems to be a qualification.