[blackshoe]

See that lamppost over there?

BTW, I added another paragraph to my last post while you were answering the first part.

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2013-January-04, 12:53, said:

You, me, and who else?

That would be me.

Although this reminds me of a joke. I used to tell my ex-wife that, except for her and me, the entire world was crazy, and I wasn't 100% sure about her.

Seems that I was right not to be 100% sure about her.

[mycroft]

I'm sorry, I don't reply to "lamppost". Most other names, sure. :-)

[blackshoe]

Okay, so there's more than three of us. Good.

[CSGibson]

I am trying to imagine a scenerio where a player sees the redouble, picks up her bidding cards to end the auction, rethinks things as picking up the cards, and then decides out of the blue to bid instead, and where it is not obvious whether she intended picking up her cards as a pass, or whether it was done pro-forma because she believed that the previous pass had ended the auction. I just don't see it happening.

You should be able to easily determine whether she is telling the truth, and then play bridge. Doing anything else seems like you are trying to twist the laws in order to win matchpoints that you do not deserve based on cardplay.

[billw55]

I might use the stop card if a sufficient number of partners/opponents/directors/whoever prompted me to do so. As it is, the actual number is exactly zero in 20+ years (on and off) of bridge. If I ever meet you guys at the table, you can be the first!

[Bbradley62]

CSGibson, on 2013-January-04, 15:26, said:

I am trying to imagine a scenerio where a player sees the redouble, picks up her bidding cards to end the auction, rethinks things as picking up the cards, and then decides out of the blue to bid instead, and where it is not obvious whether she intended picking up her cards as a pass, or whether it was done pro-forma because she believed that the previous pass had ended the auction. I just don't see it happening.

You should be able to easily determine whether she is telling the truth, and then play bridge. Doing anything else seems like you are trying to twist the laws in order to win matchpoints that you do not deserve based on cardplay.

The thing that I find troubling is this:

jillybean, on 2013-January-03, 13:38, said:

She began by saying she didn't think she had picked the cards up... Her partner then indicated that she had picked her cards up, and she finally relented...

When the director arrived, the player's first plan of attack appears to be to lie to him about the sequence of events. Once this is determined, she should lose, whatever the details of the case actually are.

[jillybean]

barmar, on 2013-January-04, 11:49, said:

If a player picks up their bidding cards, and realizes that they could have made some other call before anything else happens (in particular, before the opening lead is made face-down), I'd allow them to back up, as a "no harm, no foul" ruling.

If the player had used a pass card rather than picking up their cards to indicate a final pass, then I assume you would not be so lenient in allowing them to back up? This sounds like a compelling reason not to use the pass card in the pass out seat.

[nige1]

If directors are allowed to choose which rules they enforce, are players free to choose which rules they obey?
This trend could ruin a wonderful game

[jillybean]

thanks

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2013-January-04, 20:17, said:

What you just quoted was a response to a specific post, it now appears out of context.

Apologies. Post removed.

[paua]

jillybean, on 2013-January-04, 19:29, said:

If the player had used a pass card rather than picking up their cards to indicate a final pass, then I assume you would not be so lenient in allowing them to back up? This sounds like a compelling reason not to use the pass card in the pass out seat.

The final pass could be considered as an unintended bid.
- Oh bother, I've just found another card, I'd like to bid 3H now, "Director !"
I don't think that's the case here, but the Laws would allow it, IMHO.


Just as an aside, if the bidding goes Pass - Pass - Pass - Pass and 3rd hand then claims to have made an unintended bid, are they allowed to open ? This would be open to abuse, with say 11 HCP, waiting to see if LHO is going to pass.

[mink]

paua, on 2013-January-05, 13:12, said:

The final pass could be considered as an unintended bid.
- Oh bother, I've just found another card, I'd like to bid 3H now, "Director !"
I don't think that's the case here, but the Laws would allow it, IMHO.

An unintended call is only unintended if in the moment the call was made it was the player's intention to make a different call. Finding another card subsequently does not affect the intention to pass when the card was not yet found. A normal way unintended calls happen with bidding boxes is that the unintended bidding card sticks to the intended one.

Karl

[blackshoe]

It would be rare to allow a player a change of call under Law 25A to some bid when he's put out a pass card.

[gordontd]

paua, on 2013-January-05, 13:12, said:

- Oh bother, I've just found another card, I'd like to bid 3H now, "Director !"
I don't think that's the case here, but the Laws would allow it, IMHO.

Not IMO.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-05, 18:46, said:

It would be rare to allow a player a change of call under Law 25A to some bid when he's put out a pass card.

Seen it happen many times when pass is pulled instead of stop (unless this is done under a different law).

Not sure what happens in this situation if the previous call was a double by LHO and RHO leads face up on seeing your pass removed from the bidding box with apparent intent to play.

[nige1]

Bbradley62, on 2013-January-04, 18:43, said:

The thing that I find troubling is this: When the director arrived, the player's first plan of attack appears to be to lie to him about the sequence of events. Once this is determined, she should lose, whatever the details of the case actually are.

In a lot of cases (e.g. most BIT cases) both sides cannot be telling the truth. Nevertheless, IMO, the director shouldn't assume that players are deliberately lying. Selective memory and rationalisation are as widespread among bridge-players as in the the population at large.

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-January-06, 08:07, said:

Seen it happen many times when pass is pulled instead of stop (unless this is done under a different law).

Not sure what happens in this situation if the previous call was a double by LHO and RHO leads face up on seeing your pass removed from the bidding box with apparent intent to play.

What different law? I've seen pass pulled instead of stop exactly once in the last fifteen years.

In the EBU, the call (pass) is made. A face up opening lead ends the auction period, so you don't get to change your pass. However, the face up opening lead is an irregularity, albeit not one that rates a PP. I suppose the TD might adjust the score (Law 23, Law 12A).

In the ACBL, the call (pass) is not made, so the lead is out of turn. The auction period is not yet over, so Law 24 applies.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-06, 09:47, said:

What different law? I've seen pass pulled instead of stop exactly once in the last fifteen years.

In the EBU, the call (pass) is made. A face up opening lead ends the auction period, so you don't get to change your pass. However, the face up opening lead is an irregularity, albeit not one that rates a PP. I suppose the TD might adjust the score (Law 23, Law 12A).

In the ACBL, the call (pass) is not made, so the lead is out of turn. The auction period is not yet over, so Law 24 applies.

I've seen pass many times, double (also red) even more often and redouble and the TD call card a couple of times instead of stop.

[blackshoe]

What TD call card?

I think I've seen double instead of pass once, or maybe twice, and redouble never. Don't your players ever look at the box before they pull a card?