[TMorris]

I am sure this is easy but I can't find anything on the search facility to clarify this situation

An opponent is in the pass out position after an auction (details irrelevant). He hesitates for some time then takes out a pass card from the bidding box and nearly but not quite puts it on the table (everyone can see he has taken out a pass card) then starts to put the pass card back in the box with the intention of then making a bid.

I can see that this gives UI to his partner but at what point is the pass card played?

Thanks,

[gordontd]

From the Orange Book 7B2:

Quote

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)

[TMorris]

ok, thanks Gordon.

[bluejak]

Just to clarify: if he meant to take the pass card out of the box, he has done so and it cannot be changed once it clears the box. But if he meant something else, it can still be changed under Law 25A.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on Mar 18 2010, 05:51 AM, said:

Just to clarify: if he meant to take the pass card out of the box, he has done so and it cannot be changed once it clears the box.  But if he meant something else, it can still be changed under Law 25A.

And may I assume that the "something else" must be found in the same section of the bid box where the PASS card came from?

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on Mar 18 2010, 06:14 PM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 18 2010, 05:51 AM, said:

Just to clarify: if he meant to take the pass card out of the box, he has done so and it cannot be changed once it clears the box.  But if he meant something else, it can still be changed under Law 25A.

And may I assume that the "something else" must be found in the same section of the bid box where the PASS card came from?

That's not a requirement of L25, although one might need some persuasion that a call from a different part of the box was indeed unintended.

[bluejak]

When bidding boxes first appeared, it was stated that a call could not be considered inadvertent if a call from another part of th box was intended. After some argument it was realised that this approach was illegal, unfair and just wrong. Now, very sensibly, each case is treated on its merits, and a TD is more likely to be convinced that a 3♠ call meant 3♥ really than that it meant double, but he has the right to decide it was double if he can be convinced.

In San Remo I had a simulation where a player had bid 1♣. I allowed it to be changed to pass, and the official answer agreed with me.

[aguahombre]

Not having been at the San Remo test, I surely would like to see that one. Perhaps in a different string.

forget I asked, if the 1C card --though FROM another section and farthest away from the pass cards --was actually in a different place.

[PeterE]

No no, the (bidding-) card was in the correct place.

The player in question was thinking heavily about the previous hand and "opened" 1 ♣ on a 4-3-3-3 2 HCP hand.

[aguahombre]

Hmmm, sounds like a brain fart, in the same category as passing a splinter. We pay for our brain farts. Not the same category as pulling an unintended card out of the box.

I guess I would fail the test, especially if I followed your repeated advice that TD should not look at the person's hand, nor pull him away from the table.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Hmmm, sounds like a brain fart, in the same category as passing a splinter. We pay for our brain farts. Not the same category as pulling an unintended card out of the box.

I guess I would fail the test

Exactly. Couldn't put it better. I would fail too. Apparently the great and good in San Remo decided that you have no obligation to concentrate, no reason to look at your hand and when you make an error based on this you get to have another go.
If I fail to concentrate, think of why I didn't bid the slam on the last board and omit to draw the correct number of trumps I don't get another go. It's my fault and no-one elses. The same applies here(or should do). At the point I pulled the 1C card out of the box it was my intention to bid 1C. The fact that I it didn't correspond with my hand might be because I decided to psyche and then thought that perhaps I had sufficient good boards I didn't need to. Clearly a change of mind but call the softie San Remo crowd and they will decided I need protecting and allow me another go

[gordontd]

jeremy69, on Mar 20 2010, 09:39 AM, said:

Apparently the great and good in San Remo decided that you have no obligation to concentrate, no reason to look at your hand and when you make an error based on this you get to have another go.

One of the complaints I heard from some of the participants was about the lack of clarity and consistency in the views passed down during the course. Certainly I heard some surprising things - for example the Head Tournament Director told me that a call could be considered to be an LA even if it would be chosen by no-one - because the Laws use the word "might".

[blackshoe]

Law 16B1b said:

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

"Would any of you select that call?" "No". Not an LA.
"Would any of you select that call?" "Possible, but unlikely." It's an LA.

wtp?