[jules101]

gnasher, on 2011-January-02, 18:06, said:

For the purpose of this ruling, I don't think it's relevant whether there is a universal meaning for the the act of picking up one's cards. In this case opener definitely intended it to mean "Pass (and I think this is the end of the auction)".

How can it be the end of the auction?

The 3D bidder has another bid (if they wish!)

[gnasher]

jules101, on 2011-January-02, 18:38, said:

How can it be the end of the auction?

The 3D bidder has another bid (if they wish!)

I didn't say that it was the end of the auction. I said that opener thought it was the end of the auction. If you read the original post, you will see that opener had not noticed responder's double.

[blackshoe]

As I read EBU regulations, she has not passed. She has, however, violated two stipulations of those regulations: (1) it was her turn to call, she did not call, (2) believing the auction to be over, she did not leave her bidding cards on the table until the opening lead was faced. For these reasons, I am going to allow her to make a call other than pass if she so desires, but I am also going to issue a PP to remind her to do it correctly in future. 10% of a top seems adequate. I will also inform the other side of their right to appeal (Law 83). Hm. Is the L&E committee an "appropriate committee" in the sense of Law 83?

I don't particularly care what "everybody knows" or what this player thought she was doing. I do care what the laws and regulations say.

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on 2011-January-02, 19:22, said:

As I read EBU regulations, she has not passed. She has, however, violated two stipulations of those regulations: (1) it was her turn to call, she did not call, (2) believing the auction to be over, she did not leave her bidding cards on the table until the opening lead was faced. For these reasons, I am going to allow her to make a call other than pass if she so desires, but I am also going to issue a PP to remind her to do it correctly in future. 10% of a top seems adequate.

Note that as for (1) the bidding has, at the point I was called, not progressed past her, so it's not obvious that she's not just still thinking. As for (2), the regulation says "should" which "a violation is an infraction but it's not normally penalised". As such I did not issue a PP. Perhaps I should have done.

[blackshoe]

I was aware of the "should" wording. I think a PP is indicated anyway.

If she was still thinking, why did she pick up her bidding cards?

[gnasher]

mjj29, on 2011-January-02, 19:56, said:

Note that as for (1) the bidding has, at the point I was called, not progressed past her, so it's not obvious that she's not just still thinking. As for (2), the regulation says "should" which "a violation is an infraction but it's not normally penalised". As such I did not issue a PP. Perhaps I should have done.

It was obvious that she wasn't still thinking, because the act of picking up her bidding cards was plainly *intended* to represent a pass. (Does anybody actually have any doubt about this?)

[mfa1010]

blackshoe, on 2011-January-02, 19:22, said:

I don't particularly care what "everybody knows" or what this player thought she was doing. I do care what the laws and regulations say.

That is nothing to be ashamed of. Just kidding.

But do the regulations actually say directly what happens if a player fails to follow the correct procedure for passing? I think they don't, but show me if I am wrong about this.

So we don't know what should happen. We can only interpret, and ruling that there was no pass is just one out of several possible interpretations of the imprecise rules. A different possibility is to rule that the intended pass stands but as the player has violated correct procedure she should be warned or penalized.

We need to evaluate the situation with all its facts to make a decision. And then I think most points to the latter of the two consequences mentioned above.

[bluejak]

Imprecise rules? Only because people have decided not to take the rules literally.

The rules say how a call is made. No call was made per the rules, precisely and pedantically.

Now I do not really mind a practical approach to a rule being broken, but to call them imprecise when they were precise and clear seems to be blaming the wrong people.

As a matter of practice, a lot of players, probably a majority, do not follow the rules at some time or other. Because we want to keep this game running, because we do not want to drive people away from it, we allow a latitude, quite a great latitude, for minor rule-breaking, but it is unfair to blame the rules as imprecise when they are perfectly precise, not followed, and we are trying to decide what to do when they are not followed, and many people's view is that we should not follow the rules when ruling this case.

She did not pass: that's clear and precise.



When something should be done, it is normal not to penalise, but to penalise when failure to do it inconveniences another contestant. In this case her failure to follow more than one regulation certainly inconvenienced others and a PP seems routine.

[gnasher]

In this thread I described a situation where a player said "I'm out", and asked if a director could determine that this constituted a pass. A number of people whose views I respect said or implied that he could:

GordonTD: maybe, it depends on the circumstances

RMB1: I think the TD will accept improper forms of Pass ("I'm out", "swish", knocking) only if it is not to the passer's advantage to do so.

FrancesHinden (regarding a different form of words): I think it's just the same ruling as if he'd pulled out a pass card

TimG: I'm of the opinion that he has passed

Blackshoe: he should treat such remarks and gestures as extraneous, and require the player(s) to make proper calls using their bidding boxes, unless the player involved clearly intended to do something or other, in which case the TD should require that bidding card to be placed.

Bluejak: So, the TD has to make a judgement, based on how reasonable it is to interpret whatever happened as a pass and whether it was meant as a pass.

Can you explain why this situation is different? Is it because my earlier thread didn't relate to an EBU event but this one does?


[Edited to include a quote from TimG.]

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-January-03, 16:37