Unintended Pass when marking Scorecard!
Bridge Players can always come up new situations - Right at the start of a recent County Teams Match, the Dealer had taken out a pass card and laid it slightly below the top of her scorecard on the table. The remaining players all passed. The Dealer had then looked up and said she had not intended a pass at all on her 17 count. She had been using it to put lines on her scorecard to deliniate the boardset for each match!! Very amusing but how do you rule?
Comments
The crucial regulation is
I would get declarer to repeat his action. If it is apparent to the director that there was no intent to make a call, the director could rule that there was not a pass by dealer and that the auction consists of three passes (starting with second to call) and declarer retains the right to call.
Alternatively, the director can find that the action of taking out the pass card showed an intent to make a call, dealer has passed and it is too late to change.
Using an alert card instead would possibly have prevented the problem occurring? That obviously isn't an attempt to make a call, if you do it before partner has called.
In any case, I'd recommend that the player doesn't attempt to use bidding box cards for activities other than bidding; it's too easy to misinterpret.
As Robin Barker suggests, what matters is whether the player apparently intended to make a call (even if they didn't actually intend to make a call, if observers would interpret them as having intentionally started to make a call, and the bidding card is entirely removed from the bidding box, then the call happens). I would generally assume that if the other three players all thought that dealer had called, that's evidence that their actions suggested an intent to call (even if it wasn't actually there), but things get more confusing if (e.g.) dealer's partner thought that dealer's LHO had made the first call in the auction. Talking to the players to find out more information about what happened might override any of those assumptions, though.
It seems unusual to me for a pass to be made on top of the scorecard, it might depend where the scorecard is I suppose. There's always a bit of interpretation of the facts by the director at the table, much as Robin says they have to determine whether the definition of a made call applies.
I understand the first action Robin is suggesting and it wasn't my first thought. I think White Book 8.25.3 says that the quoted regulation was there to take into account the "accidental" removal of a call (spill/or tagged by sleve etc.) rather than the man handling of a card from the box.
I take it that the director has already indicated that play should begin, so is the inital irregularity a "failure to pay sufficient attention"? (how many lines did the player strike through?).
I did have concerns about "The Dealer had then looked up and said she had not intended a pass at all on her 17 count." (was this a general statement or just whispered to the director?) If it was said to all at the table then there is another problem with who is authorised to know that dealer has 17 HCPs. Does this statement now make it difficult to proceed with the board anyway?
At a club I might just say Pass out is the result, however, this is a county event so we probably need more information like "does the partner know the dealer always does this strike through with the pass card"? Has the dealer participated in a county event before? then we need to educate and conside a PP. Yes harsh but I think the laws are there for a reason (quoted from Jeremy Dhondy on the ebu website)
CMOT
ducks behind the wall!!
I am not sure what is intended by "apparent intent" but my interpretation has been "apparent intent to make a call"
The phrase "apparent intent" may have been taken from the recommendations by the WBF on which the Blue Book bidding box procedures are based. So "apparent intent" may be a translation of a phrase coined by a member of WBFLC.