[vigfus]

The last board of the evening. All players are in a hurry to finish. Also tired.
On the second last board, North was declarer in 1♠. He did not put the 1♠ card back into the bidding box.
Now the last board starts. West pass. North pass (The 1♠ bid is still on the table) East doubles the 1♠ bid and South redouble. West is the only one awake at the table and calls Tournament Director !!!

[aguahombre]

Why did West call the director? Partner of the person who had the 1S bid card on the table, intended or not, has made a call. The auction is what it is.

West should just do whatever he wants to do...Pass or bid....without giving the opponents any help.

[mrdct]

We probably need to know the jurisdiction as bidding box procedures are governed by local regulations. In some places, for example, it is correct procedure to leave the bidding card indicating the final contract on the table throughout the play.

In Australia, I don't think 1♠ on the final board would be considered a "made call" as it hasn't been "removed from the bidding box and held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or maintained in such a position as to indicate that the call has been made" during the auction period (n.b. "during the auction period" is not actually in the regulations, but I think it's implied). I would then turn to East's double which we may be able to treat as an "unintended call" under Law 25A in which case it is withdrawn, as is South's rebouble, and East replaces the double with a legal call and everything proceeds. East's attempted double is AI for NS and UI for EW. Similarly, South's attempted redouble is AI for NS and UI for EW.

[gordontd]

I think it's a fairly simple L36a case - East made an inadmissible call, South called over it, so both are cancelled and the auction reverts to East.

[Trinidad]

Gordon nailed this simple case, as expected. That also answers aguahombre's question (why did West call the TD?): In the hope it would be Gordon coming to his table.

The only questions that remain deal with UI:

1) is the fact that East intended to double a 1♠ opening UI for West?
2) is the fact that South intended to redouble a 1♠ opening UI for North?

I would say yes to both questions.

Rik

[iviehoff]

I'm not convinced S's withdrawn call gives UI to North. I expect that gets withdrawn "for free", ie without UI, under 16D2 as soon as the double is ruled inadmissible, and therefore S is not an offender because his potentially offending action is automatically withdrawn before we ever get around to thinking about whether it is or not.

Whilst I agree W has UI, I think it comes with a "get out of jail free" card attached. Leaving the 1S card sitting there beyond the end of the deal was an irregularity, and one that might always be expected to disadvantage the opposition because of the likelihood of them falling into the misunderstanding they fell into. So I think EW do potentially have L23 redress if they end up disadvantaged by the restrictions the UI places on them, provided they scrupulously comply with such UI restrictions.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-18, 19:01, said:

Why did West call the director?

What a strange question. There was an infraction at the table, and we are continually complaining about people who give their own rulings rather than call the TD. Here West calls the TD and you want to know why.

[kevperk]

Trinidad, on 2012-September-19, 02:55, said:

Gordon nailed this simple case, as expected. That also answers aguahombre's question (why did West call the TD?): In the hope it would be Gordon coming to his table.

The only questions that remain deal with UI:

1) is the fact that East intended to double a 1♠ opening UI for West?
2) is the fact that South intended to redouble a 1♠ opening UI for North?

I would say yes to both questions.

Rik

I think the answer is, again, it is a simple Law 36A case, which says, in part "(the auction) proceeds as though there had been no irregularity." If there had been no irregularity, there would be no UI.

[Trinidad]

kevperk, on 2012-September-19, 12:35, said:

I think the answer is, again, it is a simple Law 36A case, which says, in part "(the auction) proceeds as though there had been no irregularity." If there had been no irregularity, there would be no UI.

But there were two irregularities. And -to top things off- they were heavily intertwined.

Rik

[kevperk]

Trinidad, on 2012-September-19, 14:56, said:

But there were two irregularities. And -to top things off- they were heavily intertwined.

Rik

Ok. Still, Law 36A says the the auction proceeds as though no irregularity had occurred.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2012-September-19, 04:55, said:

Leaving the 1S card sitting there beyond the end of the deal was an irregularity.

Was it? According to what law or regulation?

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-19, 19:23, said:

Was it? According to what law or regulation?

A bidding box regulation that says bidding cards are picked up at some set time - the end of the auction, the end of the auction period, or whatever.

[iviehoff]

kevperk, on 2012-September-19, 17:48, said:

Ok. Still, Law 36A says the the auction proceeds as though no irregularity had occurred.

I think that is just saying that the mechanics of the auction proceed as if there was no irregularity. It goes on specifically to disapply Law 26 on lead restrictions. If it intended also to disapply Law 16 on UI, it would surely have said so at that point.

[blackshoe]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-19, 19:23, said:

Was it? According to what law or regulation?

RMB1, on 2012-September-20, 00:27, said:

A bidding box regulation that says bidding cards are picked up at some set time - the end of the auction, the end of the auction period, or whatever.

Sure, if such a regulation exists. The OP is from Iceland. Does their bidding box regulation say this? The ACBL's doesn't — it doesn't say anything at all about picking up bidding cards, except for the stop card.

[bluejak]

If there is no regulation, then custom & practice applies. In the ACBL custom & practice is to pick the bidding cards up at, immediately after, or even two calls before the end of the auction.

[blackshoe]

Are you saying that violating "custom and practice" is an irregularity? I don't buy that.

[bluejak]

Yes, I am. Lots of things are done according to custom & practice, and are required to be done. I don't consider leaving a 1♠ bid on the table during the next board [and why not the rest of the evening?] acceptable.

[blackshoe]

According to the laws, they, and regulations made under them, define correct procedure. Nothing in the laws suggest that "custom and practice" has that power. IMO, if you want to call something an irregularity, you have to be able to point to a law or regulation that makes it so. Or are we back in Kaplan's "decide what you want to rule, and then find a law to support it"?

[aguahombre]

O.K., now that you folks have all expressed your assessments of which laws/regs apply or don't apply ---based on facts not in evidence from the OP:

How do we know, when it was 4th chair's turn to act, that he was calling attention to an invalid auction? Opener didn't do anything to indicate he didn't want to bid 1♠; next hand's double seems to have been a double of 1♠; responder redoubled what seemed to be a double of 1♠.

Even if 4th chair noticed that the 1♠ card got there in an abnormal manner, he is the only one at the table jumping to the conclusion our posters are.

The bid box regulations that I see explain how a bid becomes a bid --player removes the bid card from his box and places it in a position so that it is considered a bid. Maybe the alledged opener was remiss in picking up his 1♠, but also lazy because he wanted to bid 1♠ anyway.

Until opener does something to indicate otherwise, we have an auction.

[iviehoff]

If it isn't a violation of the (plainly deficient) local bidding box regulations, then it's a violation of the proprieties L74A2 and/or L74A3, and Law 73F (drawing a false inference) is applicable.