[Fluffy]

1 ♣-(pass)-1 ♥ -(pass)
2 ♣-(pass)-2 ♠ -(pass)
3NT-(pass)-pass-(double)

At this point, dealer/opener picks up his bidding cards instead of passing.

Second position player who was thinking about what to lead to 3NT looking at his cards instead of looking at the rest of the auction, assumes the obvious: that opener picks up the cards because the bidding is over. So he picks his bidding-cards as well while still thinking about the lead, responder and doubler also pick up.

Finally the lead is a diamond letting 3NT doubled make when a heart lead would have defeated it. The guy on lead notices nothing untill the hand is scored when they say that the contract was doubled to his surprise. He claims that he never made a pass, so the bdding should not be over.

[blackshoe]

So after the hand is played they want to go back and revisit the auction? I don't think so. Didn't notice the double? Too bad. Next time pay attention. And I swear if I get one more call like this, I'm going to start issuing procedural penalties to both sides for failure to follow proper procedure in passing.

[nige1]

 Fluffy, on 2013-February-16, 15:49, said:

1 ♣-(pass)-1 ♥ -(pass)
2 ♣-(pass)-2 ♠ -(pass)
3NT-(pass)-pass-(double)
At this point, dealer/opener picks up his bidding cards instead of passing. Second position player who was thinking about what to lead to 3NT looking at his cards instead of looking at the rest of the auction, assumes the obvious: that opener picks up the cards because the bidding is over. So he picks his bidding-cards as well while still thinking about the lead, responder and doubler also pick up.
Finally the lead is a diamond letting 3NT doubled make when a heart lead would have defeated it. The guy on lead notices nothing untill the hand is scored when they say that the contract was doubled to his surprise. He claims that he never made a pass, so the bdding should not be over.

Unless some daft local regulation supervenes, the auction was incomplete. Players from both sides seem to have picked up their cards instead of passing. Hence both sides were at fault. So perhaps the judgement of Solomon is: both sides suffer a procedural penalty; but the result stands Oh I see Blackshoe replied at the same time I did

This post has been edited by nige1: 2013-February-16, 17:39

[sfi]

The first question that needs to be answered is what the opening leader would have done differently had he seen the double. Surely he wasn't planning on bidding, so he can argue with a fair bit of logic that he would have led a heart.

The next issue is who failed to follow correct procedure. The declaring side, who saw the double, clearly did and could have been aware that this infraction would affect the defending side. However, there is no reason to suspect that the opening leader meant his action as a pass. I do think the defending side should have been able to notice the double though - if the bidding cards had been taken off the box quickly the doubler would have been within his rights to make some comment that the auction was not yet done.

Given the information provided I would adjust the score under Law 23, to 3NTx making for the defenders and 3NTx going off on a heart lead for the declaring side.

[pran]

 sfi, on 2013-February-16, 18:09, said:

The first question that needs to be answered is what the opening leader would have done differently had he seen the double. Surely he wasn't planning on bidding, so he can argue with a fair bit of logic that he would have led a heart.

The next issue is who failed to follow correct procedure. The declaring side, who saw the double, clearly did and could have been aware that this infraction would affect the defending side. However, there is no reason to suspect that the opening leader meant his action as a pass. I do think the defending side should have been able to notice the double though - if the bidding cards had been taken off the box quickly the doubler would have been within his rights to make some comment that the auction was not yet done.

Given the information provided I would adjust the score under Law 23, to 3NTx making for the defenders and 3NTx going off on a heart lead for the declaring side.

No question needs answering.

As correctly stated by both blackshoe and nige1 the auction has been completed although in an irregular way, and the play has been started (and even completed).

There is no reason for TD to make any adjustments, but there may be cause for PP because the players created problems by failing to follow correct procedure.

That a player claims to not having noticed the double is no excuse, the auction stands as made (assuming all pass when the bid cards were picked up).

[RMB1]

Why is opener considered to have passed? They thought the auction was over, so they picked up their bidding cards - they did not intend to pass. I know it is practical to consider that the auction finished with three passes following the double but in the absence of law/regulation the auction has not finished.

I could make some ruling that playing to the first trick accepts that the auction has finished and award the apparent table result or I could rule that no result is possible and award 40/40. If I was feeling particularly grumpy, I could award both sides the worse of 40% and their apparent table score.

[Fluffy]

Is taking a double for a pass against the laws?

just clarifying: opener/dealer was totally aware of the double, he just decided to pick his cards away because he suposed no other bid than pass is possible for the other players.

[RMB1]

 Fluffy, on 2013-February-17, 04:44, said:

Is taking a double for a pass against the laws?

It is not illegal but it may lead to incorrect procedure, and the player who mistakes the auction is responsible for his own mistaking. If opener had thought the auction was over, there were two other players who did not make proper passes.

 Fluffy, on 2013-February-17, 04:44, said:

just clarifying: opener/dealer was totally aware of the double, he just decided to pick his cards away because he suposed no other bid than pass is possible for the other players.

In that case we can rule that everyone made passes but not in the correct manner.

If dealer was aware of the double but (OP) "he claims that he never made a pass, so the bdding should not be over" then he is guilty of deliberately breaking the laws to try and gain an advantage - and I would throw the book at him.

[gombo121]

I think picking up bidding cards instead of final pass is quite common. There is even the following minute of WBF Law Comittee (Beiging, 2008)

Quote

4. The Committee examined a note prepared by the Chairman on the WBF screens regulations and agreed it should be forwarded to the WBF Rules & Regulations Committee. Inter alia it suggests that the regulation should say that a player who removes his bidding cards from the tray ‘may be deemed to have passed’.

Granted, it concerns playing with screens, but anyway I don't see the action as an infraction per se.

However, here opener picks his cards before his partner has opportunity to bid and it is quite conceivable that he would like to remove doubled contract. It can be construed as an attempt to convey UI ("I have all bases covered"), so PP is definitely in order, in my opinion.

As for result, I think result stands - one should really pay attention and if bidding cards was removed too fast, the parnter could well linger a bit.

[sfi]

 pran, on 2013-February-17, 03:55, said:

That a player claims to not having noticed the double is no excuse, the auction stands as made (assuming all pass when the bid cards were picked up).

This is exactly what I do not assume. The person picked up their cards because they thought the auction was already over. This action is not the same as picking it up as an incorrect method of passing.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-16, 17:28, said:

So after the hand is played they want to go back and revisit the auction?

The auction hasn't ended yet. There haven't been three successive passes, so West's lead and all that followed occurred during the auction. You can't accept a lead that is made during the auction.

What we have here is an incomplete auction and 52 exposed cards.

Quote

Didn't notice the double? Too bad. Next time pay attention

West is partly responsible for not noticing the double, but if South and North had followed proper procedure, that would have made West aware of the double.

Quote

And I swear if I get one more call like this, I'm going to start issuing procedural penalties to both sides for failure to follow proper procedure in passing.

We haven't seen any evidence that West intentionally did something wrong - all he did was fail to pay sufficient attention.

I agree that NS should be penalised for their wilful failure to follow proper procedure, and perhaps also for allowing the "play" to proceed even though the auction wasn't over (edit: though this was unintentional). East is also guilty of the latter offence.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-February-17, 06:33

[gombo121]

 sfi, on 2013-February-17, 05:37, said:

The person picked up their cards because they thought the auction was already over. This action is not the same as picking it up as an incorrect method of passing.

But, since as TD you have no way to distinguish them, they are the same in all practical senses.

[Cyberyeti]

 Fluffy, on 2013-February-17, 04:44, said:

Is taking a double for a pass against the laws?

just clarifying: opener/dealer was totally aware of the double, he just decided to pick his cards away because he suposed no other bid than pass is possible for the other players.

Depends on how charitable you are, it could be sending the message "don't even think about pulling this partner".

[gnasher]

 gombo121, on 2013-February-17, 06:06, said:

But, since as TD you have no way to distinguish them, they are the same in all practical senses.

Of course you have a way to distinguish: you ask him why he picked up his cards, and he tells you.

[gombo121]

 gnasher, on 2013-February-17, 06:22, said:

Of course you have a way to distinguish: you ask him why he picked up his cards, and he tells you.

Sorry, not very practical after the end of the play.

I would gladly reopen bidding before the lead or may be even after the lead but before dummy have been shown, but certainly not when the result became clear.

[gombo121]

***

[gnasher]

 gombo121, on 2013-February-17, 06:57, said:

Sorry, not very practical after the end of the play.

Why is it impractical? The director asks "Why did you pick up your cards?" and the player answers either "I thought the auction was over" or "I was trying to pass".

Quote

I would gladly reopen bidding before the lead or may be even after the lead but before dummy have been shown, but certainly not when the result became clear.

How you rule is a separate matter from determining what happened.

My point was that it's easy for the TD to distinguish between West picking up his cards as shorthand for "pass", and West picking up his cards because he thought the auction had already ended.

[pran]

Raise one hand those of you who never have experienced a trivial auction like 1♥ - 3♥ - 4♥ and the 4♥ bidder just showing his bid and then immediately taking back all his bid cards, followed by the other three players taking back theirs, and everybody happy.

What, a raised hand??? Do you have much experience in directing?

[gnasher]

 pran, on 2013-February-17, 09:35, said:

Raise one hand those of you who never have experienced a trivial auction like 1♥ - 3♥ - 4♥ and the 4♥ bidder just showing his bid and then immediately taking back all his bid cards, followed by the other three players taking back theirs, and everybody happy.

What, a raised hand??? Do you have much experience in directing?

That situation is completely different from the one in the original post. In the situation you describe, all three of the other players intended their removal of the cards to mean "pass". In the situation in the original post, West intended his removal of the bidding cards merely as compliance with the regulations about what happens after the end of the auction.


Since you ask, though: no I've never experienced this situation. As the 4♥ bidder I would never do it. As one of the other three players I would point out that the auction wasn't over.

I don't direct, but I don't see why you imply that a director should expect to encounter this situation. If everybody is happy, nobody will call the director, so the director will never become aware of this minor breach of procedure.

[ggwhiz]

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-16, 17:28, said:

So after the hand is played they want to go back and revisit the auction? I don't think so. Didn't notice the double? Too bad. Next time pay attention. And I swear if I get one more call like this, I'm going to start issuing procedural penalties to both sides for failure to follow proper procedure in passing.

I understand that the worst part of most players games is the use of the pass card and support the notion of double pp's with loud "Duh's" to both sides.

It has happened a few times to me where I let the opps pick up there cards and sit there waiting for my lead when I produced a bid instead.