Law 85 - Was the bid made?
Law 85 is one I often struggle with.
Yesterday I has the player (and partner) insisting the bid had not cleared the bidding box, whereas one of the opposition claimed it had. All are adamant. What do I do?
I can't toss a coin. How do I rule? Does two overcome one?
I eventually ruled that the bid had been made. Assuming no one is deliberately lying, I decided that it was more likely that someone might miss the moment a bidding card clears the box (or in the case of the bidder have an extreme angle that might hide it) than someone seeing a gap that wasn't there.
Have I done right?
I had a similar situation a while ago over whether a contract had been doubled. I ruled that it was easier to miss an opponent's double than to think you'd made one when you hadn't, especially as the previous call by that player was also double. I was much happier with that one!
In general, how should we approach these irresolvable (on the evidence) situations?
Comments
Apply the wisdom of Solomon as well as Law 85A1 - or take up chess.
In the case yesterday, I would be of the opinion that players are more likely to call the TD if they think an irregularity has occurred than if they think it hasn't. This is partly because where I play the TD is sparingly called (or they don't like me :) )
With regard to the ealier one, I would be less sanguine - the player may have thought that the earlier double was in fact a double of the final contract. (I am assuming the earlier double was for take out.). If, for instance the auction had involved a forcing pass then that might have been more indicative of the contract being doubled.
But, as you say, there is no right or wrong answer.
When uncertain judgement rulings must be done, must be done,
A director's lot is not a happy one, happy one.
Contract played and made and i was called to adjudicate.
My question, who passed last?
If that was taken as a double there would need to be 3 more passes... there wasnt as that tap was the last pass and the lead was made as normal etc.
So asking about the passes sorted that one out.
Bid/no bid is one of those hesitation/no hesitation situations where there is no evidence other than he said/she said types.
Pick a side and upset the other.
I tend to make a 'preliminary' decision with a view to review later. Often the heat is taken out of the situation at that time and when people are cooler they realise it does not really matter, at least at a club level.
More serious competition needs more consideration. But at the end of the day without independent witness, you believe one over another. Doesn't this put directors in tje position of using biases (sex, race, experience or lack thereof) to make a decision.
Assuming that a top pair and experienxed claim a less experienced/savvy pair hesitated, we are likely to believe the experienced pair. How about if the situations were reversed? Do we still believe the experienced pair?
Doesnt this lead to it being advantageous to claim hesitations at every possible opportunity and not doing so is disadvantageous?
Alan
Alan
There is a risk that as players get to know how these things work they may take advantage by claiming something where they "know" they'll get the benefit of the doubt. So far I don't think that's a big problem, but if it becomes one I'm sure the wonderful wizards in Aylesbury will sort it out.
In the OP I was a little suspicious that the complainer specifically said about the bid being clear of the box, but then there's no rule against them knowing the detail of the law, and I didn't think he was outright lying.
I've just had another thought about this.
In the OP, the bid that was eventually deemed to be made resulted in a disastrous score for them, which gave their opponents a very good score without displaying any bridge skill on their part. To allow a different call would have been a more representative result.
Is there an argument for saying that we should lean towards the decision that is generous to the offender?
To be clear, that's not how I think the law currently works, but it has a nice "let's play bridge" feel to it.
I'm in favour of encouraging players to think before their hand wanders over to the bidding box, rather than afterwards. If there's any doubt as to whether the bid technically cleared the bidding box then I'll likely rule that it did clear the box and then remind people to be sure of what their intent is before pulling a card from the box.
An under bid....
Withdraw the bid and replace with a pass
Problem solved.... ;)
If there were actually doubt about whether the card has cleared the box or not, it strikes me that it's unlikely that anyone but the bidder would know which bid was actually being made; even if the bidding card is held slightly above the box, it's hard for other players to be able to see which bid it is. That fact might make it easier to determine what actually happened.
Also, bear in mind that the rules on when a bid is made (Law 18F, which refers to Blue Book 3ZA2, and Law 25) aren't entirely based on whether the card has cleared the box; there's also an intent component. If a player is messing about with the cards to the extent that there can be a dispute about whether they've been removed from the bidding box or not, I can easily see an argument that there's no obvious intent to have made the bid. (I might well give the player a warning for touching the bidding cards before deciding their bid, though.) So the only time it would matter would be if a player changes their mind (not just a mechanical error) halfway through withdrawing the card from the box, where the deciding factor would be if they managed to stop their hand motion before the card was entirely removed; that could of course have happened here, but it's not the only scenario that fits the facts as they've been presented so far.
The issue here was whether the bid had been made. Player change their mind and wanted to pass instead.
That is exactly what happened here.
One thing to consider is that because of the angle of view, it will look to the player concerned as though the cards have not cleared the box until some time after they actually have and can be seen by others to have done so.
Thanks, Gordon. That was part of my original reasoning, but it's nice to see it validated.
What we teach in this and 'card played' cases is to get the player to repeat the action. Opponents may not agree with the precise position that the 'bidding' cards got to but nevertheless there may be enough agreement to be able to rule one way or another.
one point I would like to make - one director at my club will not accept a tap on the table as a pass even when the last pass is made! ref: Martin's comment
Quite right - even though quite rare!
I'm not sure how that relates to this thread though.
Note, though, that, by BB 3ZC3, a tap of the table, waft of the hand etc, can be deemed to be a legitimate pass.
That doesn't mean it's a permitted method. It just says what the TD can do if it has nonetheless happened.
Gordon - 1 Nov - Martin said a player taps the table to pass & since a director at my club will not accept a tap, I always use my pass card. Always new things come up from a single subject discussion.
It's the main reason why sometimes declarer gets as far as writing down the final result before discovering that the contract was doubled.
It's one of several things that I would like to remind players about every session when I Direct. Sadly, I don't think they want a ten minute lecture every time.
Alan
I think we need to avoid an officious mentality over what many would reasonably view as trivial matters. What are we suggested to do after a player clearly and incontrovertibly indicates that they have passed by a gesture or verbal shortcut? Are we to give them a lecture and stand over them telling them that they must take out the pass card from the bidding box or face expulsion from the event?
I find this discussion especially bizarre considering that if they decide that they didn't want to pass then the TD can inform them that their wave of the hand or tap of the table constitutes a valid pass.
With regards to Alan's first comment. I find it amusing when someone says to partner, "Your lead" and I respond with "No, it's my bid".
BB 3ZC3 says "Usually this does not cause a problem". That means that sometimes it does cause a problem. I have been summoned to a table where there is an argument because North has claimed that West, after passes by East and South had tapped the table so that must be the end of the auction and East should made an opening lead. West disputed that she had tapped the table and insisted she was still thinking about what to call. I observed the auction on the table and advised North that the auction had not finished.
Failure to follow correct procedure can cause problems. Bidding boxes are there to be used. I don't regard this as a "trivial matter". I always use the Pass card, and I don't see why others can't follow correct procedure too.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I take your point, Barrie, but was thinking more of the situation where West, in your example, has tapped the table and, maybe picked up his numerous earlier pass cards and now North says, "You haven't passed yet. Please don't remove your earlier passes. Director, please!". Disputes about actions can always arise regarding intent.
Personally, I quite like that in pass-out seat I can use the pass card to scoop up my earlier passes with. It's very convenient for that purpose.
I believe that 3ZC3, specifically "wafting", should be repealed and everyone be required to use a card from the box under each and every occasion it was their turn to bid. That is what I believe but I also know that it won't be. Therefore, the above scenario will play out again and again; people are like that.