[One Short]

Declarer opens the bidding 1NT
LHO takes out the Pass Card and places it face down close to the bidding box which is situated in the normal right-hand corner of the table (that is, not in the position where the bidding cards are usually placed in front of the bidder).The card can be seen by all the players and they all know it is a Pass Card even though they cannot see its face.
LHO then replaces the card, takes out the Stop Card and bids 3♣
The Director is called and, away from the table, asks LHO what he thought he was doing. LHO explains that he was thinking about what he should do and that those two calls (Pass and 3♣) were the only ones he was considering. At no stage he claims had he changed his mind.
The bid of 3♣ was allowed to stand on the interpretation of Section 7 B 2 of the Orange Book. This states "A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent"

Is it correct to say that the bid of 3♣ is the only call to have been made?

If the call of Pass is deemed to have been made, would it then be an unintended call within Law 25 and therefore eligible for substitution?

[Vampyr]

Just when I thought I'd heard it all!

One Short, on 2012-March-21, 18:41, said:

Is it correct to say that the bid of 3♣ is the only call to have been made?

I'm afraid I have no idea, but...

Quote

If the call of Pass is deemed to have been made, would it then be an unintended call within Law 25 and therefore eligible for substitution?

to this question I can answer absolutely not. Can the player really be said to have been reaching for the 3♣ card and come up with a Pass, and been surprised that it has come out of the box? In this case it is not a stretch, it is simply false.

This player must be taught not to reach for the bidding box until she has decided on her call. I think that a warning would be enough, just this once.

[MrAce]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-21, 19:49, said:

Just when I thought I'd heard it all!



I'm afraid I have no idea, but...



to this question I can answer absolutely not. Can the player really be said to have been reaching for the 3♣ card and come up with a Pass, and been surprised that it has come out of the box? In this case it is not a stretch, it is simply false.

This player must be taught not to reach for the bidding box until she has decided on her call. I think that a warning would be enough, just this once.

3♣ bid and pass may not be neighbour in the bidding box but STOP card and pass are. Maybe she intended to take out the stop card and took out pass card accidently ?

[Vampyr]

MrAce, on 2012-March-21, 22:12, said:

3♣ bid and pass may not be neighbour in the bidding box but STOP card and pass are. Maybe she intended to take out the stop card and took out pass card accidently ?

Could be, but she would have had to come up with that before the story she actually told!

EDIT: Sorry, really thought OP said "she".

[campboy]

The pass was certainly made because it looked like there was intent. It does not matter (for the purpose of OB 7B2) whether there actually was.

As MrAce says, it is possible that it was inadvertent and the player intended to pick up the stop card. Did the player claim this is what happened? However, the fact that he admits he considered pass makes it likely that it was a slip of the brain rather than a slip of the hand. I have made that sort of mistake more than once myself.

[iviehoff]

This player says he had not firmly decided to pass at the point he took the pass card out, and has not claimed he thought he had anything other than the pass card in his hand. I think the player believes that he can remove cards from the bidding box before he has firmly decided what to do, and replace them up to the point of firmly making his mind up, rather like playing cards from hand, provided he doesn't display them in the manner of playing card. But the regs for playing cards and making bids are different. They say that the bid is made when it is removed with "apparent intent" - the player's actual intent is irrelevant. Only if the player mispulls do they get another chance. With bidding, it is irrevocable (apart from mispulls and other unconscious acts) when you remove it from the box.

[mjj29]

Noone has yet quoted the relevant regulation (although it's been alluded to):

OB7B2 said:

... A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the
bidding box with apparent intent (but the TD may apply Law 25)

The player should be read this at which point it should be clear. The call was removed from the box. It was with apparent intent (they didn't knock the bidding box over or something). Therefore the call has been made.

If there were any question about getting the pass card rather than the stop card then L25 might be applicable - but from the OP that is not the case. The regulation is clear that in the EBU it's removing the card from the box that matters, not facing the card on the table (as it might be under other RAs and as the player seems to believe).

[Vampyr]

mjj29, on 2012-March-22, 04:30, said:

Noone has yet quoted the relevant regulation (although it's been alluded to):

Odd, thought I'd seen it in the OP.

[mjj29]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-22, 06:06, said:

Odd, thought I'd seen it in the OP.

Fair point (-:

[billw55]

Whichever call is enforced, bidder's partner may be next up for a UI ruling.

[Zelandakh]

I recommend that we create new bidding rules and we take out of the bidding box each call that we are seriously considering, then return them one by one in the order of least preference. This should make our bidding much more accurate. In combination with Weasel we could possibly even manage to convey exact distribution in only one round of bidding! Just think what might be possible with a relay system constructed in this fashion!

This sounds like the kind of ruling made when the OS are regulars and the NOS visitors or not particularly liked. Having tried playing in a club that regularly made such rulings I would recommend that you look for a 'proper' place to play bridge in the area as soon as possible. I say this under the caveat that what the OP states is actually what happened. Since the important conversation took place away from the table it is not impossible there is an element of Chinese whispers involved.

[jallerton]

iviehoff, on 2012-March-22, 02:47, said:

Only if the player mispulls do they get another chance. With bidding, it is irrevocable (apart from mispulls and other unconscious acts) when you remove it from the box.

Only if the player claims to have mispulled do they get another chance. With bidding, it is irrevocable (apart from self-declaration of mispulls and other unconscious acts) when you remove it from the box.

[blackshoe]

When was Law 25B1 rescinded?

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2012-March-22, 08:27, said:

I recommend that we create new bidding rules and we take out of the bidding box each call that we are seriously considering, then return them one by one in the order of least preference.

Love it!

blackshoe, on 2012-March-22, 15:31, said:

When was Law 25B1 rescinded?

It was not suggested in the OP that a dozy LHO called over the 3♣ bid. I do not think that the director is permitted to actually offer this an an option.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough, but if the "offender" had actually changed his call, his choice is not irrevocable, since his LHO can accept the change.