[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2013-February-18, 06:34, said:

You think it is ok for the opponent who induced the mistake by an illegal act to gain?

No. The way I read it, the player who wasn't paying attention wouldn't have been paying attention even if everybody put out pass cards as they were supposed to do.

[Vampyr]

gombo121, on 2013-February-18, 11:56, said:

As I understand, he is not deep in thought, he picks his cards with everybody else. Allegedly, because he imagines that his parntner have passed, so auction is over. So partner of the dealer sees that his RHO removes cards indicating passing and so does he and then doubler. Nobody acting illogically.

One does not "remove cards indicating passing" when several people still have a bid.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-18, 12:04, said:

No. The way I read it, the player who wasn't paying attention wouldn't have been paying attention even if everybody put out pass cards as they were supposed to do.

Where does it say that?

In fact, it would be very strange for the player to continue to not pay attention. If you think the auction is over, and then someone makes a further call, that's unexpected. In such circumstances it is natural to look back at the last round of bidding, to see whether the auction really was already over. If, on the other hand, you think the auction is over and then somebody picks up their bidding cards, that won't be at all unexpected, so you will have no reason to reexamine the auction.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-18, 12:14, said:

One does not "remove cards indicating passing" when several people still have a bid.

One does if one is in North America.

gnasher, on 2013-February-18, 12:16, said:

Where does it say that?

In fact, it would be very strange for the player to continue to not pay attention. If you think the auction is over, and then someone makes a further call, that's unexpected. In such circumstances it is natural to look back at the last round of bidding, to see whether the auction really was already over. If, on the other hand, you think the auction is over and then somebody picks up their bidding cards, that won't be at all unexpected, so you will have no reason to reexamine the auction.

The OP said, in effect, that the putative opening leader had his head buried in his hand, thinking about his opening lead. I don't think it would have made much difference to him if he'd seen a pass card on his right, rather than a "pick up the bidding cards". In this case, someone did make a further call, and his partner didn't notice. The unexpectedness of the further call did not cause him to look at the bidding, because he didn't know it happened.

I'll grant some culpability on the part of the putative declarer, but the problem is not entirely his fault. I don't think it's primarily his fault, either.

[Fluffy]

I am just telling the story as I think it happened, concentrated on your cards you obviously distinguish between someone picking up cards and making another call, what you have a harder time to distinguish is a pass from a double wich both look alike, having more or less the same size and coming fromt he same box, when he told me the story I was thinking he would tell me next that dummy bid 4M and he didn't see it.

Not sure if this is relevant, but the player who didn't notice the double (Luis Lantaron) is tournament director, (I think EBL level), and WBF's world master. He is the player I know who follows the rules the best, specially things about bidding boxes, stop procedures and playing cards all the exact same way.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-18, 12:24, said:

The OP said, in effect, that the putative opening leader had his head buried in his hand, thinking about his opening lead. I don't think it would have made much difference to him if he'd seen a pass card on his right, rather than a "pick up the bidding cards".

No, but when he was told that it was his turn to bid, he would have taken a look at the auction to date.

It did not occur to him, nor would it to me, that I still had a bid when people to my right are putting their bidding cards away.

But if you didn't understand when Andy said all this, you will not understand now.

Quote

I'll grant some culpability on the part of the putative declarer, but the problem is not entirely his fault. I don't think it's primarily his fault, either.

He picked up his bidding cards in the middle of the auction. I do not need to look further if I am placing blame.

[blackshoe]

<sigh> Okay, fine. Who violated procedure? Line them up and shoot them. Next case!

[kevperk]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-18, 08:16, said:

That's pretty hard on a person who sees the bidding cards on his right picked up. If he had been thinking about a lead he was not necessarily inattentive; and when RHO has indicated that the person has no more calls, why would be look again at the auction? He might, of course, but then again, he might not.



What I find difficult to believe is that anyone has witnessed such an extraordinary occurrence.



I don't play a lot of party bridge, but what happens there is not really relevant (not that I have ever seen this phenomenon there either). Most of the posts on these forums refer to organised duplicate or rubber bridge.

I don't think this is that uncommon that the club level.

[kevperk]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-18, 15:25, said:

No, but when he was told that it was his turn to bid, he would have taken a look at the auction to date.

It did not occur to him, nor would it to me, that I still had a bid when people to my right are putting their bidding cards away.

But if you didn't understand when Andy said all this, you will not understand now.



He picked up his bidding cards in the middle of the auction. I do not need to look further if I am placing blame.

It would occur to me that I had a bid if my partner had made a bid rather than pass, even if my RHO were picking up my cards. I guess I pay more attention to what my partner does, and less my opponents.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-18, 08:16, said:

Quote

Sure this is an irregularity, but who cares in a friendly party of bridge? (And most parties of bridge are friendly are they not?)

I don't play a lot of party bridge, but what happens there is not really relevant (not that I have ever seen this phenomenon there either). Most of the posts on these forums refer to organised duplicate or rubber bridge.

I quit playing in one particular club where I no longer experienced the parties of bridge as friendly. And I did notice that I was certainly not the only one who quit there.

Are your organized bridge parties (whether duplicate or rubber) not friendly?

(If someone is damaged from an irregularity then of course they shall have the proper redress.)

[gnasher]

Bridge in England is generally friendly, but also generally played according to the rules.

I've only played bridge in Norway once, but my impression was that bridge is Norway is also both friendly and played by the rules. Maybe I was lucky, but I don't remember anyone picking up their bidding cards half way through the auction.

[Vampyr]

A lot of people here seem to think that the game is less friendly when it is played by the rules; I think quite the opposite. When rules are waived because "it's a friendly game" or "you're nice people", what is the message sent the times a rule is not waived?

I find it curious that the attitude of so many is that the Laws and local regulations exist to waste our time and curb our enjoyment. In the UK, people are content to follow the regulations on bidding cards, stop cards, alerts and announcements and (usually) convention cards. These things are not considered a bother; rather they are recognised as being part of a friendly, smooth-running game.

I think the word "game" here is important. A game has rules, which entirely define it. If one decides to play and not follow those rules, he might as well just do something else instead.

[Fluffy]

In Spain the main problem to follw the rules is that:

-Nobody follows them (for example stop regulations and 'may I look againt on previous trick?')
-Almost nobody knows them, even many directors have forgotten many of them. The fact they change so often (what is alerted and what not for exmple) is partially responsible of this.

I sometimes feel like I should go to local clubs and play following all rules calling director when the tinniest one is broken, but I would just become so impopular I think, and director would hate me

[pran]

gnasher, on 2013-February-19, 03:49, said:

Bridge in England is generally friendly, but also generally played according to the rules.

I've only played bridge in Norway once, but my impression was that bridge is Norway is also both friendly and played by the rules. Maybe I was lucky, but I don't remember anyone picking up their bidding cards half way through the auction.

You were not "lucky" - bridge in Norway is indeed both friendly and generally played by the rules.

I say "generally" because my experience is that we do not often split hairs on trivial technicalities that cause no problems.

Like in OP here: Did the failure of one player to observe the double cause any damage? Would there have been a different auction except for the three extra pass calls required? Would there have been a different number of tricks won in the contract?

[gnasher]

pran, on 2013-February-19, 07:34, said:

I say "generally" because my experience is that we do not often split hairs on trivial technicalities that cause no problems.

Indeed, but this technicality did cause a problem, or at least it contributed to a problem.

Quote

Would there have been a different number of tricks won in the contract?

Yes, there would have been a different number of tricks. See posts 1 and 37.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-February-19, 07:45

[lalldonn]

Suppose I am about to declare a hand and my rho leads out of turn and face up, rather than the proper method of leading face down. I am not paying attention so I put my hand on the table as dummy, as i would be if rho were actually on lead. We then realize what has happened and call the director. I want to choose a different option of forcing the same suit to be led from the proper side (suppose i hold the king with the ace on my left, so the side the lead comes from makes the difference between our contract making or going down.) Won't the director tell me too bad, I should have paid attention? I seriously doubt he will say my rho is to blame because if he had led face down this could have been more easily prevented. After all, he could never have expected to gain in the way he did. I don't see much difference between that situation and the one being discussed.

Frankly i am disappointed in the level of personal responsibility displayed by the opening leader. Failing to notice partner's bid because you weren't paying attention is as careless a mistake as you can make. Live with the consequences.

[barmar]

pran, on 2013-February-19, 02:06, said:

Are your organized bridge parties (whether duplicate or rubber) not friendly?

Duplicate bridge games are not usually called "parties", even if the club members are friendly (although I have some friends who have thrown parties where we played duplicate bridge).

[Vampyr]

lalldonn, on 2013-February-19, 09:54, said:

Frankly i am disappointed in the level of personal responsibility displayed by the opening leader. Failing to notice partner's bid because you weren't paying attention is as careless a mistake as you can make. Live with the consequences.

If you didn't expect partner to bid, then you thought the auction was over, so it not unreasonable to be studying your hand while thinking about your opening lead. Your RHO's picking up his bidding cards is now proof that the auction is over. I really don't blame the opening leader for failing to revisit the bidding cards on the table; would anyone actually think it is his turn to bid when RHO has already removed his bidding cards?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-February-19, 10:10, said:

Duplicate bridge games are not usually called "parties", even if the club members are friendly (although I have some friends who have thrown parties where we played duplicate bridge).

I have thrown parties where duplicate bridge was played. We still played according to the rules because, if nothing else, it is easier that way.

[sfi]

lalldonn, on 2013-February-19, 09:54, said:

Suppose I am about to declare a hand and my rho leads out of turn and face up, rather than the proper method of leading face down. I am not paying attention so I put my hand on the table as dummy, as i would be if rho were actually on lead. We then realize what has happened and call the director. I want to choose a different option of forcing the same suit to be led from the proper side (suppose i hold the king with the ace on my left, so the side the lead comes from makes the difference between our contract making or going down.) Won't the director tell me too bad, I should have paid attention? I seriously doubt he will say my rho is to blame because if he had led face down this could have been more easily prevented. After all, he could never have expected to gain in the way he did. I don't see much difference between that situation and the one being discussed.

A major difference is that the situation you describe is specifically addressed in the laws (54A). Dummy becomes declarer and there are no other options.

Quote

Frankly i am disappointed in the level of personal responsibility displayed by the opening leader. Failing to notice partner's bid because you weren't paying attention is as careless a mistake as you can make. Live with the consequences.

I have a lot of sympathy for opening leader, as Vampyr is arguing, and for dummy. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the doubler, who should have said something at the table. And I have very little sympathy for declarer. Hence my ruling to adjust the score for declaring side only.