BBO Discussion Forums: another pick up bids instead of pass - BBO Discussion Forums

 pran, on 2013-February-17, 09:35, said:

One hand here.

I have seen many times when the last pass was made by picking up the cards.

I have seen it quite a few times when the player before the last pass picks up the corner of his cards and looks at his LHO ("You are also going to pass?").

I have seen it once that the player before that looked to the left and to his partner ("You guys are going to pass?"). But I have to admit that that was in 7NTXX where his LHO said: "I don't think we are allowed to do anything anymore.".

And I have never seen it that the last player making a bid picks up his bidding cards after making the bid. I don't expect to see that any time soon either.

Maybe the fact that players know that I am a TD prevents them from doing something that silly, but I'd like to think that they are smart enough not to do that against other players either.

Rik

I seem to have wandered into blml.

A player who mistakenly thinks the bidding is over because he is not paying attention is going to have to live with his mistake, as far as I'm concerned.

 gnasher, on 2013-February-17, 09:26, said:

Because it is quite probable, it is even very probable that the answer you'll get won't be sincere. Do you expect to be called if 3NTx is going down for a number? I don't think so.

It is very dangerous to pose such question, because after it you have unpleasant choice of either implicitly call this particular player a liar, or condemn yourself to believe in future any self-serving explanation players come up with (and they do).

 RMB1, on 2013-February-17, 05:21, said:

The guy who says the bidding is not over is the partner of the doubler, the player on lead, the player who didn't see the double and didn't intend to pass, since he never picks up cards unless he is the 4th hand player.

 gnasher, on 2013-February-17, 11:53, said:

I have never experienced it either, and if I ever should, my being "happy" about it is an extremely far-fetched notion.

It sometimes seems that in the EBU people are content to follow regulations and accepted procedure, while everywhere else people can't be bothered or are too "cool" to be asked.

blackshoe said:

What about a player who mistakenly thinks that the bidding is over partly because he is not paying attention and partly because of an opponent's willful failure to follow proper procedure? What about a pair who gain an advantage as a result of not following proper procedure?

You may think that it's too hard to apply the rules in this situaton, but if you're going to make an extralegal ruling you should at least make it a fair one.

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-17, 13:38, said:

If that was aimed at me it went straight over my head. I've never read BLML, so I've very little idea what it is they do there, or why it's bad, or whether I'm doing it too.

I'm not very good at understanding emoticons either.

Gnasher, this is surely not a proper legal opinion, but I think you are being too hard on the player who picks up his cards when he thinks the auction will end. Not only is it common (you surely don't care about that), but you make it sound malicious which it wasn't. It's just being a little lazy and trying to save time, a misdemeaner at worst. It was certainly not foreseeable that the player could gain an advantage in any way. (I don't think they "gained an advantage as a result of not following proper procedure" anyway since I don't think what occured was a result of their not following procedure.) I would never punish him for it. The player who thought a bid was another bid is at fault as far as I'm concerned. It's a very careless mistake that he must live with.

I mean look what Fluffy said. "Second position player who was thinking about what to lead to 3NT looking at his cards instead of looking at the rest of the auction, assumes the obvious: that opener picks up the cards because the bidding is over. So he picks his bidding-cards as well while still thinking about the lead, responder and doubler also pick up." The player wasn't even looking at the auction! And then he wants recourse because there was a bid he didn't notice? Sorry, he won't get any from me.

The problem Josh is that you empathice (or whatever the word is) with a player who picks up bidding cards when you should not. It is a very bad habit. And doing it when partner has a bid is terrible, you convey UI that she should not remove nor redouble, and on this case this even damaged the opponents. I don't think there are many clearer situations to award a PP than this.

 Fluffy, on 2013-February-17, 16:06, said:

You don't convey UI that you don't want partner to remove the double (probably), you convey UI that you don't expect him to remove the double. That isn't useful to him. I don't know the full hand but according to you the contract was going down on the opening lead suggested by the double. It hardly seems declarer was desperate to avoid his partner pulling.

But whatever you think of that, it has nothing to do with what happened. The damage to the opening leader was self-inflicted because he wasn't looking at the auction. It's not as though the player could have thought that by putting his bidding cards away after being doubled, he will keep the opening leader from seeing the double. Procedural penalty? I know on law forums people love to give procedural penalties, but in real life it would be major overkill. Much worse than this generally escapes unpenalized.

If I am driving a car with my eyes closed, and hit a pedestrian who is jaywalking, can I blame him because he was in the crosswalk when he wasn't supposed to be?

 lalldonn, on 2013-February-17, 15:52, said:

I didn't mean to imply that it was malicious, but I assume it was willful. That is, he didn't do it in the hope of gaining, but he did know he was breaking the rules.

As for whether he gained from his infraction, perhaps we're just arguing about terminology, but his side's score was higher than it would have been had he not committed the infraction.

These two facts between them seem to me good reason to penalise him. I'm not sure whether I also want to adjust the score. Both defenders contributed to what happened: declarer's LHO was inattentive, and declarer's RHO accepted three players apparently using improper procedure. So maybe I should give both sides 40%, as suggested by Robin.

 lalldonn, on 2013-February-17, 16:21, said:

You are right on this case, becasue I know very well players involved and they would never attemp something like that. However I've seen many times players trying to induce partner or opponents to pass out removing the bids, and it works more than you'd think, an opp tried to do that to me when I was under 20, I read that he was afraid of me removing 6♥X to 6NT, so I did. Trumps were 5-0 and 6NT was the right contract.

 gnasher, on 2013-February-17, 15:39, said:

It was aimed at the general trend of the conversation, not at anyone in particular. On blml, they seem to love getting into long discussions about esoteric points of law about which no consensus ever seems to be reached. Discussion of practical handling of everyday problems doesn't seem to interest blmlers much.

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-17, 20:28, said:

Indeed - neither of them has much interest in that.

 pran, on 2013-February-17, 03:55, said:

When a player commits an offence, and this offence is a major cause of an opponent making a mistake then we should not be allowing him to get away with it unscathed, saying the opponent has no excuse.

 gombo121, on 2013-February-17, 06:06, said:

Of course you have. "Why did you remove your cards instead of passing? Was this a signal to partner to leave it in 3NT doubled?"

 pran, on 2013-February-17, 09:35, said:

I have raised my hand. Players take away cards instead of the last pass, yes, and very rarely the penultimate pass. But I have never known anyone take their cards away with partner still to call. Unless they can convince me this is an accident I shall give them a 50% of a top PP for trying to get partner to pass.

Yes, thanks for asking, I do have a little experience in directing.

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-17, 13:38, said:

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

I cannot believe that I am (almost?) the only one who sometime or other have experienced an auction ending with the last player making a bid and, feeling certain (from how the auction proceeded) that his bid will be the contract, just picking up his bid cards not waiting for the three subsequently expected pass calls to come?

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

Of course I have also experienced a surprising double to appear like a lightning from a blue sky in such situations, after which everybody laugh, restore their bid cards to the table and complete the auction in the regular way.

Now, as for gaining from an irregularity I have a problem seeing how anybody may have gained from the irregularity in the OP situation. How would the auction and play probably have been different had the double been noticed by those players who claim being unaware of it?

 pran, on 2013-February-18, 07:31, said:

Lightner double asks for a heart lead wich beats. No double makes the lead on the not bid suit atractive.

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-17, 13:38, 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.

 pran, on 2013-February-18, 07:31, said:

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

Quote

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.

So, my RHO bids 3NT, which might well end up being the contract.

I pass and I look at my cards to think of a lead, should it be passed out. I see LHO pass, I think more about the lead and see that RHO picks up his bidding cards, as does everybody else. I more or less conclude that the auction is over, I lead upside down and ask "My lead?" and everybody concurs. I face my lead and pick up my bidding cards.

Now, we look at it from partner's point of view:
LHO bids 3NT, partner passes, RHO pass, I double for the lead. LHO picks up his bidding cards, RHO picks up his bidding cards, my partner is thinking. Why should I pick up my bidding cards?!?

And now declarer's point of view:
I bid 3NT. Pass - pass - dbl. Why should I now pick up my cards?!?

Dummy's point of view:
Partner bids 3NT. Pass, I pass, dbl. Partner picks up his bidding cards. RHO is thinking. Why should I now pick up my bidding cards?!?

In summary, previous posts have identified the opening leader as someone who wasn't paying attention. I would identify the other three players as doing something completely illogical and utterly strange. I can -sort of- understand the behavior of the 3NT bidder: He thinks the auction will be over. But the actions of dummy and third hand are inexplicable. They take away their bidding cards when a player before them is clearly still thinking! Picking up the bidding cards is not only an illegal pass, but it is an illegal pass out of turn!

Opening leader is the only one who hasn't broken any rules. Declarer has broken one rule and was the one who initiated the mess. Dummy and third hand have broken two rules. Yet, for some, it is all opening leader's own fault.

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-18, 10:05, 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.