[jillybean]

---

You are called to the table by West who tells you that South passed and now wants to change their bid.
South only has the 1D card on the table and tells you that they thought their partner bid 4S

You ask South, did you put the pass card on the table?
South replies no, and then demonstrates how they reached for the pass card then banged the table twice.

You ask South how they became aware that partner had bid 4nt and not 4S
South hessistates, West offers that North glared at their partner.
South offers no explanation.

How do you rule

[shyams]

IMO the ruling is "South passed".

I recall there was a ruling from a high-level, possibly a WBF bridge event played with screens.
* Players at such events rarely put the final pass on the tray and send it back across the screen (a technically incorrect procedure).
* Instead, they pick up their bid cards and send the tray back with the other side's bid cards for pickup.
* This one time, a player (who had erroneously withdrawn his cards not realising partner's overcall) tried to argue that the last pass had not occurred.
* The Directors at the event rejected his theory and ruled that a pass had been implied by the player's actions.

[blackshoe]

South passed. And he's close to getting a disciplinary penalty for trying to get out of it the way he did.

As for the high level ruling, I agree with the TD -- you don't get to ignore the rules and then try to use that to your advantage.

Not putting out pass cards when people think the auction is over is a freakin' epidemic.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2025-July-09, 22:08, said:

South passed. And he's close to getting a disciplinary penalty for trying to get out of it the way he did.

As for the high level ruling, I agree with the TD -- you don't get to ignore the rules and then try to use that to your advantage.

I agree, but find it hard to reconcile your judgement here with your judgement on the other thread where South was about to accidentally accept the LOOT.
It seems to me that in both cases we have to choose whether or not to privilege the spirit of the laws over the letter.

[pescetom]

I would have passed as South in any case

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2025-July-10, 06:45, said:

I would have passed as South in any case

LOL

I did not allow the change of call.
DP, PP, penalties of any kind are unheard of in club games, it would be odd to introduce them to this non sanctioned game.
I did want to spank North for giving UI and South for using it.
West is an improving player who also has an interest in the laws, I was impressed that they called in this "friendly" duplicate game.

South can't use any spirit to wake up after partner glares at them. We all know these players who visually check with their partner while , or directly after, making a bid.
It's a habit, as a nervous new player that I had to break, fortunately my partners were mostly poker faced. I got the angry face after the game.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2025-July-10, 06:45, said:

I agree, but find it hard to reconcile your judgement here with your judgement on the other thread where South was about to accidentally accept the LOOT.
It seems to me that in both cases we have to choose whether or not to privilege the spirit of the laws over the letter.

Hm. Frankly, I don't remember "the other thread" at all. Hell, if I'd had breakfast (I didn't) I wouldn't remember what I ate! :-) I suppose I could go back and look for it, but that's too much work. It does occur to me that the situation would be different if South actually did accept the LOOT. And I'm not sure what "accidently" means in this context.

Maybe I'm just inconsistent because I'm old. :-)

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2025-July-10, 06:53, said:

I did want to spank North for giving UI and South for using it.

Can't do that. They might enjoy it too much. :-)

Read them Law 90, or at least Law 90A. And maybe Law 91 as well. Then explain that you're not giving them a penalty this time, but they should remember these laws for the future.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2025-July-10, 14:57, said:

Hm. Frankly, I don't remember "the other thread" at all. Hell, if I'd had breakfast (I didn't) I wouldn't remember what I ate! :-) I suppose I could go back and look for it, but that's too much work. It does occur to me that the situation would be different if South actually did accept the LOOT. And I'm not sure what "accidently" means in this context.

Maybe I'm just inconsistent because I'm old. :-)

The other thread is:
https://www.bridgeba...iew__getnewpost

Accidentally accept as in playing to the trick without realizing that the lead was out of turn.
But please follow up there, I don't want to hijack this thread.

[blackshoe]

This thread is about a problem during the auction. The other thread is about a problem during the play. In this case, South passed, and then wanted to change his pass. He can do that if and only if the pass was inadvertent. It wasn't. He had a… temporary brain malfunction. In the other case, West led out of turn. Different situation, different laws. I don't see a reconciliation problem, but I'll post something on the other thread about this.

[barmar]

jillybean, on 2025-July-09, 18:31, said:

You ask South, did you put the pass card on the table?
South replies no, and then demonstrates how they reached for the pass card then banged the table twice.

I know at least one player who uses knocking on the table like that as a way to alert.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2025-July-15, 09:32, said:

I know at least one player who uses knocking on the table like that as a way to alert.

I know a few too, I tell them not to.
Not because I have any doubt about their intentions and goodwill but because it sets a precedent noted by other pairs, and soon there will be no clear procedure or even pairs who make a distinction between the Alert card and knocking.
Same issue as people putting their bidding cards back rather than passing.

[jillybean]

At one club, the alert cards have been removed from the bidding boxes. To bring attention to an artificial bid, I'm required to do the chicken dance.

I actually bang on the board in the middle of the table, that seems to get even a sleeping opponents attention.

[pescetom]

I think there is something to be said for alternative procedures, such as tapping on the bidding box or whatever: it's just that the regulations say to use the Alert card (and they don't even specify exactly how it should be used, despite my best efforts).
In particular I dislike the way people will extract (or reach for) the card before partner makes his call, which is very handy for both (and am uncomfortably aware that I sometimes do this unwittingly myself).

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2025-July-18, 08:37, said:

In particular I dislike the way people will extract (or reach for) the card before partner makes his call, which is very handy for both (and am uncomfortably aware that I sometimes do this unwittingly myself).

In some sequences, you know that nearly all of partner's bids will be alertable, e.g. after you open a strong club. I keep my hand near the alert card so I can show it promptly rather than fumble with the box after partner bids. I don't really consider this to be a problem. One of my partners is slow at alerting, even in situations like this, I find that annoying.

Some Precision players keep the alert card on the table rather than in the box, to make it easier to grab since they know they'll need it frequently.

[jillybean]

barmar, on 2025-July-18, 09:52, said:

In some sequences, you know that nearly all of partner's bids will be alertable, e.g. after you open a strong club. I keep my hand near the alert card so I can show it promptly rather than fumble with the box after partner bids. I don't really consider this to be a problem. One of my partners is slow at alerting, even in situations like this, I find that annoying.

Some Precision players keep the alert card on the table rather than in the box, to make it easier to grab since they know they'll need it frequently.

I'm not too concerned with opponents ultra alerting. I often leave the alert card tucked just under the bidding box, especially with those ridiculous alert cards with very small tabs that get lost in the bidding box. I believe players who alert quickly are very aware of their responsibility and not using it as UI, but I guess it is possible. I am guilty of reaching for the alert card immediately after I open 2C
I am more concerned with the glares, stares and even accompanying taps that go with artificial or forcing bids.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2025-July-18, 09:52, said:

In some sequences, you know that nearly all of partner's bids will be alertable, e.g. after you open a strong club. I keep my hand near the alert card so I can show it promptly rather than fumble with the box after partner bids. I don't really consider this to be a problem.

After I rebid at 1 level I know that partner's most likely bids are all alertable, but I still consider my instinct to reach for the Alert card to be a problem: if there was any chance of her forgetting that we play XYZ then now it is gone.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2025-July-18, 11:24, said:

After I rebid at 1 level I know that partner's most likely bids are all alertable, but I still consider my instinct to reach for the Alert card to be a problem: if there was any chance of her forgetting that we play XYZ then now it is gone.

Yes

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-July-18, 14:47, said:

Yes

My suggested Alert procedure is that when partner has made a call that is alertable one should extract the alert card from the bidding box, then place it at the centre of the table and hold it there until RHO has either asked for an explanation or called, at which point it should be retracted and replaced in the box.
This is undoubtedly imperfect, but surely better than having no procedure at all, or tolerating that people already have the card in hand or on the table or leave it out after the explanation or whatever.