[andy_h]

Edit: Location - EBU/Germany

Sorry if this has been talked about before but I don't know much about the laws.

This is the situation. You're declaring in some contract and towards the end-game you have an A/Q guess as dummy has KJ. But before you lead the x to dummy you have already worked out that your LHO 100% has the queen. You play small and, expecting LHO to play x you call for the J a second before LHO plays a card but after that 1 sec LHO has placed the Q on table and your call of the Jack has been slurred to Jackkk-kIng (without a pause like Jack...no, King). What is the correct ruling in terms of what declarer is allowed to do? Would it make any difference if there was a 1-2sec pause when declarer called for the Jack and then LHO decides to play the Q (from Qx) declarer then announced for the King?

[mjj29]

andy_h, on Jul 12 2010, 04:04 PM, said:

Edit: Location - EBU/Germany

Was someone competing via video link?

andy_h, on Jul 12 2010, 04:04 PM, said:

This is the situation. You're declaring in some contract and towards the end-game you have an A/Q guess as dummy has KJ. But before you lead the x to dummy you have already worked out that your LHO 100% has the queen. You play small and, expecting LHO to play x you call for the J a second before LHO plays a card but after that 1 sec LHO has placed the Q on table and your call of the Jack has been slurred to Jackkk-kIng (without a pause like Jack...no, King). What is the correct ruling in terms of what declarer is allowed to do? Would it make any difference if there was a 1-2sec pause when declarer called for the Jack and then LHO decides to play the Q (from Qx) declarer then announced for the King?

"Jacking" doesn't name a card in dummy, so I think it's likely declarer would get away with it. The TD has to judge whether he called for a card and then changed it, or whether he did not complete naming a card.

Assuming that dummy has just the KJ left, the correct call is, of course, always "Cover" (-:

[mrdct]

Players calling for cards from dummy before it's dummy's turn to play is a pet peeve of mine. Similarly, I get quite annoyed at declarers who follow suit from their own hand before RHO has played to the trick.

I think saying "Jackkk...king" is a designation of the Jack so I'm going to force him to play the Jack under the Queen and advise him to wait until his LHO has played a card in future before calling for a card from dummy.

Law 44C4:

Quote

a. A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play.
b. Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. If an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his hand, and substitute another (see Laws 47D and 16D1).

It seems that declarer's intent was to play the Jack and he only changed his mind when he saw the Queen on his left so I don't think he can get relief.

[Cascade]

I agree with David (mrdct)

[bluejak]

Certainly his intent is not relevant because this is clearly a change of mind.

We have lots of case Law that something has not happened until it is finished. For example, using spoken bidding, neither "One" nor "One sp" is a call that has been made. Using bidding boxes no call has been made when "Stop" is produced. And in the ABF I once ruled that the final pass of the auction had not been made when only one line was drawn across the box [at the time the regulation required two lines].

So if the word "jack" was completed then the play of the jack stands, but if the word "ja" has not been completed it may be changed. It is a matter of fact for the TD to decide whether the word "jack" has been completed.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on Jul 12 2010, 07:25 PM, said:

in the ABF I once ruled that the final pass of the auction had not been made when only one line was drawn across the box [at the time the regulation required two lines]

The old ABF regulations for written bidding (which unfortunately I can't find a copy) did require the final pass to be two parralel diagonal lines across the bidding square but I think it's drawing a long bow to rule that a single diagonal line in the pass-out seat is not a pass and allow it to be substituted with some other call unless the change is clearly done without any pause for thought.

[nige1]

Agree with both of MrDct's posts.

[bluejak]

mrdct, on Jul 13 2010, 02:32 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 12 2010, 07:25 PM, said:

in the ABF I once ruled that the final pass of the auction had not been made when only one line was drawn across the box [at the time the regulation required two lines]

The old ABF regulations for written bidding (which unfortunately I can't find a copy) did require the final pass to be two parallel diagonal lines across the bidding square but I think it's drawing a long bow to rule that a single diagonal line in the pass-out seat is not a pass and allow it to be substituted with some other call unless the change is clearly done without any pause for thought.

You are confusing two separate concepts. If a call is not made it may be changed, and pause for thought does not come into it. You may think that following the regulations is not a good idea but it is the way that TDs should rule. So if a call has not been made per the regulations it can be changed, and personal feelings should not affect that ruling. UI is relevant, of course.

I did, of course, check the regulation before ruling. I discovered at that time that two lines was required in some states but not others , also in the ABF itself.

[mrdct]

I'm in a bit of an information vacuum as I don't have a copy of the old Australian regulations, but whilst tournament organisers and sponsoring organisations have the power to specify the manner in which bidding is conducted pursuant to Law 18F, this would never override Law 22A2:

Quote

LAW 22 – PROCEDURE AFTER THE BIDDING HAS ENDED
A. End of Auction
The auction ends when:
1. all four players pass (but see Law 25). The hands are returned to the board without play. There shall not be a redeal.
2. one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in rotation subsequent to the last bid. The last bid becomes the contract (but see Law 19D).

Clearly, once three consecutive players have marked the bidding pad with the acceptable symbol for pass (/) the requirements of Law 22A2 have been met and the auction is over. The fact that final pass wasn't in the (then) preferred form of "//" is irrelevant.

The same would've applied under the old Law 17E:

Quote

17E. End of Auction Period
The auction period ends when all four players pass or when after three passes in rotation have followed any call the opening lead is faced (when a pass out of rotation has been accepted, see Law 34).

If a person in the pass-out seat wrote the word "pass" in the square, they would be reminded of the correct procedure and possibly face a procedural penalty or warning, but they would not be able to undo their pass and substitute it with some other call.

[blackshoe]

Seems to me that if the regulations require two slashes to indicate the final pass, then one slash is akin to "Pa..." which is not a call made.

[mrdct]

The Laws speak of three "passes" not two passes followed by a "final pass". The generic symbol for a pass is a slash so if three consecutive players draw a slash in their square, the auction is over.

It is perhaps the absurdity of having a different symbol for the final pass that saw the Australian Bridge Federation come to its senses and amend the written bidding regulations to explicity allow the final pass to be either "/" or "//".

Fortunately this is all moot now, but another illustration of the silliness of not treating "/" as a pass in the pass-out seat would be if a player writes "//" when they are not in the pass-out seat and then gets told his "//" doesn't mean anything and he substitute it with any legal call (subject to UI issues of course).

[blackshoe]

I'm not going to argue with you. However, if the ABF goes back to the old regulation, however stupid that might be, then ruling that a single slash is a final pass would be TD error.

[nige1]

mrdct, on Jul 13 2010, 10:14 PM, said:

I'm in a bit of an information vacuum as I don't have a copy of the old Australian regulations, but whilst tournament organisers and sponsoring organisations have the power to specify the manner in which bidding is conducted pursuant to Law 18F, this would never override

Law 22A2 said:

The auction ends when:
1. all four players pass (but see Law 25). The hands are returned to the board without play. There shall not be a redeal.
2. one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in rotation subsequent to the last bid. The last bid becomes the contract (but see Law 19D).

Clearly, once three consecutive players have marked the bidding pad with the acceptable symbol for pass (/) the requirements of Law 22A2 have been met and the auction is over. The fact that final pass wasn't in the (then) preferred form of "//" is irrelevant. The same would've applied under

The old Law17E said:

The auction period ends when all four players pass or when after three passes in rotation have followed any call the opening lead is faced (when a pass out of rotation has been accepted, see Law 34).

If a person in the pass-out seat wrote the word "pass" in the square, they would be reminded of the correct procedure and possibly face a procedural penalty or warning, but they would not be able to undo their pass and substitute it with some other call.

mrdct, on Jul 14 2010, 02:30 AM, said:

The Laws speak of three "passes" not two passes followed by a "final pass".  The generic symbol for a pass is a slash so if three consecutive players draw a slash in their square, the auction is over.  It is perhaps the absurdity of having a different symbol for the final pass that saw the Australian Bridge Federation come to its senses and amend the written bidding regulations to explicity allow the final pass to be either "/" or "//". Fortunately this is all moot now, but another illustration of the silliness of not treating "/" as a pass in the pass-out seat would be if a player writes "//" when they are not in the pass-out seat and then gets told his "//" doesn't mean anything and he substitute it with any legal call (subject to UI issues of course).

FWIW, I still agree with MrDct.

[bluejak]

mrdct, on Jul 14 2010, 04:14 AM, said:

I'm in a bit of an information vacuum as I don't have a copy of the old Australian regulations, but whilst tournament organisers and sponsoring organisations have the power to specify the manner in which bidding is conducted pursuant to Law 18F, this would never override Law 22A2:

Quote

LAW 22 – PROCEDURE AFTER THE BIDDING HAS ENDED
A. End of Auction
The auction ends when:
1. all four players pass (but see Law 25). The hands are returned to the board without play. There shall not be a redeal.
2. one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in rotation subsequent to the last bid. The last bid becomes the contract (but see Law 19D).

Clearly, once three consecutive players have marked the bidding pad with the acceptable symbol for pass (/) the requirements of Law 22A2 have been met and the auction is over. The fact that final pass wasn't in the (then) preferred form of "//" is irrelevant.

You would be right is if it were "acceptable" as you said but it was not. A slash indicated a non-final pass per regulation, a double slash indicated a final pass per regulation. It is not the TD's job to rule contrary to regulation even if he feels there could be a better regulation.

The double slash was not the "preferred" form of final pass: per the regulation it was "the" form of final pass.

[mrdct]

Whilst I don't have the old regulations at hand, I'm sure they would not have used the term "non-final pass". They would have said "/" = pass and "//" = final pass.

If a player writes "/" in his square in any seat he has made the call of "pass" pursuant to the regulations and the laws. If it happens to be the third pass in succession, the auction is over. He may well have committed an irregularity under the regulations but it is clearly an irregularity capable of simple rectification of writing an additional parallel slash.

Under your interpretation of the old regulations, how would you rule in the following situations:

West North East South
(1S): / : (/) : /

1. 15 or 20 seconds elapses after the third "pass" and north produces a face-up opening lead. Before east puts dummy down, south says "Hang-on! I haven't passed - all I've done is drawn a non-regulation slash in my square which I now want to substitute with a valid symbol under the ABF written bidding regulations".

2. Same as above except this time east puts his hand down on the table intending it to be dummy not realising that the auction was still alive and that north's attempted opening lead was actually an exposed card during the auction.

The original intent of having a different symbol for the final pass in the regulations was presumedly to reduce the frequency of the awkward irregularity of players bidding-on after the third pass. It was surely not the intent of the regulation to open the door for players to freely change their mind in balancing position to undo an otherwise legitimate pass.

[bluejak]

I would rule that since he intended it to be a final pass he has committed a very minor irregularity to which I would apply no penalty. How on earth would you expect me to rule?

The fact that you think it is trivial does not help: if you do not like a regulation you get it changed, you do not ignore it. But it does not mean that TDs have to act stupidly either.

[CSGibson]

mrdct, on Jul 12 2010, 03:22 PM, said:

Players calling for cards from dummy before it's dummy's turn to play is a pet peeve of mine. Similarly, I get quite annoyed at declarers who follow suit from their own hand before RHO has played to the trick.

I think saying "Jackkk...king" is a designation of the Jack so I'm going to force him to play the Jack under the Queen and advise him to wait until his LHO has played a card in future before calling for a card from dummy.

Law 44C4:

Quote

a. A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play.
b. Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. If an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his hand, and substitute another (see Laws 47D and 16D1).

It seems that declarer's intent was to play the Jack and he only changed his mind when he saw the Queen on his left so I don't think he can get relief.

I don't know if this is the law. If it is the law, then its a ridiculous law. There is no damage to the non-offending side - they are just trying to manipulate the rules at this point, since declarer clearly intended to cover the card played, to the point that he didn't even complete the call of the card.

I don't know if the EBU rules the same way, but the ACBL rules have been modified to try to restore equity whenever possible, and not to be punitive. Making the declarer play the jack when he so clearly intended not to is not restoring equity; it is punishing the declarer, and thus not within what I hope to be the spirit of the laws.

[JoAnneM]

Back to the OP, I think this goes back to the world championship several years ago that was lost in a similar situation, and the change of call was not allowed. I use that incident as an example when telling people to wait till it is their turn to play, after I have been called to the table.

[blackshoe]

The relevant laws in this case are the same everywhere.

The ruling is not "I'm forcing you to play the Jack", it's "you said "jack" and by law, that's a play of the jack, which you cannot now change". If you're going to be lenient on declarers who screw this up, where are you going to draw the line?

That said, I would want to hear declarer repeat exactly what he said, exactly the way he said it. "Ja..king" is different from "jack..king" or from "jacking".

It is a long established principle that declarer cannot play from a tenace in dummy and then change his play based on LHO's later play. That principle should stand, emphasis on equity in the latest laws notwithstanding. Equity doesn't mean protection from stupidity.

[dburn]

Put it this way: if declarer led towards his hand and played the jack before noticing that RHO had played the queen, he would not be allowed to change his play. Why should he be allowed to change a play from dummy in identical circumstances?