[paulg]

Having played every board in the English Premier League, I have yet to find a player who does not sweep up the cards instead of placing the Pass card on the tray in the pass out seat. I have also yet to see a player sweep up his cards in the seat before the pass out seat.

Having kibitzed most of the world's top players behind screens, this seems to be common practice.

So ruling a pass in the pass out seat when someone picks up their cards seems right. Ruling the third seat pick up as a pass seems wrong.

I am surprised that this is not a common situation. The tray passing skills of top players is not great and I've often thought that they could not have seen a bid (or more often a double card) when the tray has been under-pushed. Zia's famous (♥Q?) lead against 6NT was only made when he thought he was defending 4NT.

Paul

[dan_ehh]

bluejak, on Nov 21 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

Quote

You are correct, but I do not know of any law which says you should treat this behaviour as a pass.

Of course there is no Law [though I understand Denmark has a relevant regulation]. But custom & practice allows it to be done. It seems to me that if you normally remove your cards to make a pass you have put yourself in the unfortunate position whereby if you remove your cards you have passed.

Compare my actions. I touch a pass card as the final pass: I know a player who always says "Pass" as the final pass. These are clear unambiguous passes, albeit illegal under the Regulations. But taking your cards away I do not like because it is ambiguous: have you passed or have you taken your cards away without passing? Thus, players that do this ambiguous action should not get the benefit of any doubt when there is any.

Quote

Your point about not being able to distinguish between this behaviour when it is intended as a pass and when it is not intended as a pass may be valid under a set of different circumstances, but it seems to be moot in this situation, because one cannot intend to pass when one thinks it is not one's turn to pass.

No, not at all. That is just the reason why I find this method of passing unacceptable. Since the action of taking cards way is ambiguous and illegal, a player who does so should expect to be ruled against if it matters.

I do not condone removing your bidding cards and skipping the final pass, but I also do not see the relevance to this case.
We were not told in the OP that north and east regularly pick up their cards instead of making their final pass, so I see no reason to make this assumption, but even if they do belong in the group of people who act in this unwanted way, they obviously were not committing this unwanted action now, because they thought the situation was different. The only wrong thing they have done is not pay sufficient attention, and for that you might be correct in penalizing them, but artificially ending the auction is the wrong way.

Introduction to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge said:

The laws ... are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.

It seems to me that you are punishing the north and east players for an irregularity they may or may not have performed on a different board(s). It seems absolutely clear to me that this specific irregularity has not occurred in the discussed board. Furthermore, I do not see any reason not to let the auction continue. Since both north and east did not pay close enough attention to the auction, they are both at fault, and so there is no non-offending side which needs to be protected, but moreover, I do not see any damage which needs to be rectified. What is wrong with simply letting the auction continue after west's pass? South's comment about making another bid may be UI, and perhaps the TD should speak to NS about UI restrictions, but that seems to be the only problem, and not a very big one anyway since the player who bid stayman will make another bid in 99% of the times.

[bluejak]

We rule according to Laws and Regulations. The Scope is merely to tell us the lawmakers' views, and we do not make decisions based on it. Even if we did, the bit you quote [and everyone always quotes] contains the word primarily, which therefore does not exclude secondary matters.

I do not care what the intent is: the players passed.

Ok, if they can convince me they do not take their cards away instead of passing, then they have not passed and the ruling should be different.

[blackshoe]

You said upthread David that

Quote

players that do this ambiguous action should not get the benefit of any doubt when there is any.

Personally, I have no doubt, given the information in the OP, that both North and East thought the auction had gone 1NT-P-P-P, so that when the tray came back, neither N nor E had any right to make a call. That being the case, at that point, the proper thing to do, what most people actually do, is to remove their bidding cards and put them back in the box. IOW, IMO, their action in this case was not ambiguous, there is no doubt, and there is no reason, no legal basis, for treating the removal of their bidding cards as a pass.

But even if you have doubts, your later statement

Quote

I do not care what the intent is: the players passed.

does not reconcile well. You are here stating an absolute. Doubt is irrelevant, the circumstances are irrelevant. Some players illegally "pass" by picking up their bidding cards, therefore these players, who picked up their bidding cards, have passed, regardless of any other considerations. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

[duschek]

bluejak, on Nov 21 2009, 08:19 AM, said:

Quote

You are correct, but I do not know of any law which says you should treat this behaviour as a pass.

Of course there is no Law [though I understand Denmark has a relevant regulation].

I think we have no regulation which, perhaps conditionally, translates the premature removal of bidding cards to a pass.

Did I cause confusion through a previous post of mine, or is your understanding based on something else, e.g., correspondence with members of the Danish LC?

[bluejak]

Comments many years ago from one of my two friends, Jens Brix Christiansen or Jesper Dybdal.

[duschek]

bluejak, on Nov 21 2009, 06:00 PM, said:

Comments many years ago from one of my two friends, Jens Brix Christiansen or Jesper Dybdal.

OK. Jens is directing tomorrow at the Danish League matches anyway, so I might discuss the matter with him.

However, first I must complete a match, followed by TWO appeals cases that my team is involved in. I might present the cases here when the smoke has cleared, so that our readers here can get some practice

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Nov 21 2009, 04:46 PM, said:

We rule according to Laws and Regulations.

In that case, you should be able to tell us which law or regulation makes South's removal of his bidding cards a pass.

[duschek]

duschek, on Nov 21 2009, 06:06 PM, said:

Jens is directing tomorrow at the Danish League matches anyway, so I might discuss the matter with him.

No luck. Jens did not recall exactly what was discussed. However, he felt fairly sure that we never had a regulation which stated how removing the bidding cards should be interpreted.

[bali 2]

WBF. COC 2009 ( ¤ 24 . Bidding boxes ) : " If a player whose pass [COLOR=red]auction removes his bidding cards from the table, he is deemed to have passed."
For example : N opens 1NT, East 2♥, South 3NT, W pass, N pass, and when East removes his 2♥ card he is deemed to have passed.
So, apparently, we are not here in the same situation, and we may be inclined to say that as the North player has not called over 2♣, the auction is not closed, and East has not the option to remove his card "Pass" ( from the first round ) to close the auction.
So we go back to the tha auction, North's turn to call : N do not see the 2♣ card and do not bid ( he removes his 1NT card ) , East removes his "Pass" card, concluding the auction, and now we have 3 Pass over the 2♣ bid. We still arrive at the same result : 2♣ is the final contract. If the TD allows the auction to be reopened and gives North the opportunity to call again, he is canceling the mistake and favoring N/S side against E/W, and also ruling on contrary to the law 17( or may be 22 ...)

Al. Ohana

[bali 2]

" If a player whose pass will conclude the auction removes..."

Sorry, I wished to write it in red, but do not succeded ...

[pran]

According to this North never passed did he? (His pass would in case not have concluded the auction.)
Now what about East's turn to call?

[gnasher]

WBF CoC 26 said:

Screens
...
A call placed and released may be changed under the Director's supervision:
...
If it is determined by the Director to be a call inadvertently selected

Even if we accept the absurd argument that North has passed, the pass was plainly selected inadvertently, and can therefore be changed.