[Sky Red]

1 There are four passes
2 Dealer then shows his hand saying that with a different partner he would have opened a weak two hearts.
3 This announcement “wakes up” fourth bidder (the final pass) who claims that he meant to open one club.
4 He does have his bid – there are 15 hcp with six clubs headed with AK.

Q1 Can the fourth pass now be changed to a one club bid?
Q2 If so; can dealer bid having exposed all thirteen cards?
Q3 Would there then be any restrictions on the bidding by dealer’s partner?
Q4 If dealer elects not to bid (passes again) can dealer’s partner bid?
Q5 Should the “one club bidder” or his partner become declarer, are all thirteen exposed cards now major penalty cards?
Q6 And would this mean that in effect declarer could play the opponent’s exposed hand?

[Vampyr]

Q1 IMO it is rarely correct to accept an "unintended bid" from another part of the bidding box. An unintended call is a "mis-pull". So no.

[Lanor Fow]

I agree it would be very unusual to deem this a law 25a change, but not impossible. I remember at least one director talking about a 25a ruling with spoken bidding which is obviously not a "mis-pull".

For the sake of the questions, however I'll assume that the director deemed that the pass was unintended as per law 25a.

1) With the assumptions above, yes. A 25A correction can be made either before the end of the auction period, or before the players partner bids, which ever comes first. As the board was passed out the auction period lasts until all 4 hands are returned to the board (law 22)

2) Dealer now has 13 card that have to be left on the table. Dealer can make any bid they chose, but their partner is forced to pass for one round

3)See 2, they have to pass for one round

4)See 2

5)Correct

6)Yes declarer designates which card is played. More than that, there are lead penalties if his partner gets on lead. Assuming the exposed hand has no void, declarer could demand, or prohibit any suit (the penalty cards in that suit are then picked up).

[helene_t]

Interesting. So we should never comment on a passed-out board before all four hands are returned to the board, just in case someone turned out to have passed by mechanical error?

[blackshoe]

Proper procedure is to return your hand to the board. Seems to me it's a good idea to follow proper procedure - and to withhold any comments until everyone has done that, thus avoiding this problem.

I could understand it if the commenter wanted to leave the table during the play of this hand — but as TD I'm afraid I'd have to disallow it, because it would cause the hand to be technically unplayable (no one but the player can touch his cards — he's not dummy). I suppose if he were really upset, I'd sit down and turn cards for him, in effect ensuring the orderly progress of the game (Law 81C1).

Fourth seat who claims that he was going to open the bidding, after his opponent's comment, is going to have to be very convincing for me to allow him to change his call.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2016-January-13, 19:34, said:

Proper procedure is to return your hand to the board. Seems to me it's a good idea to follow proper procedure - and to withhold any comments until everyone has done that, thus avoiding this problem.

Maybe true, but I can't remember the last time we had a pass-out where the players didn't all show their hands so we could speculate on whether anyone could make something, what might happen at the tables where someone plays mini-NT, etc. The short auction and no play period leaves lots of extra time for post mortem.

[blackshoe]

Well, if you're going to do that then no one at the table should be allowed to invoke L25A once the post-morteming starts. Even if the dealer is the one who starts the ball, and no one else has yet shown his hand.

[barmar]

Well, I find the original premise mostly unconvincing to begin with. Like you said, someone would have to be very convincing to get me to believe that they intended to bid when they passed out the hand.

We've all been playing for long times, has anyone ever experienced a situation like this?

[Sky Red]

This is a real life situation.
I was the player director and my partner was the fourth pass.
Because there was no other director available, I did have to rule and said that it was a passed out board.
It turned out to be a bad board for us – but it might not have been.

I posted the situation just in case I might be called to deal with a similar event at another table within the next half century and also to hope some side issues would be aired. They have; in particular the “very convincing argument”. My OP described the hand (15 hcp with 6 clubs headed by AK) so clearly biddable and not border-line. So what has the director to be convinced about?.
Presumably the director should not rule any differently just because it is the fourth pass and not an earlier one. And how would the director reject a mechanical error explanation without implying a lie having been told?

[pran]

 Sky Red, on 2016-January-15, 15:36, said:

This is a real life situation.
I was the player director and my partner was the fourth pass.
Because there was no other director available, I did have to rule and said that it was a passed out board.
It turned out to be a bad board for us – but it might not have been.

I posted the situation just in case I might be called to deal with a similar event at another table within the next half century and also to hope some side issues would be aired. They have; in particular the “very convincing argument”. My OP described the hand (15 hcp with 6 clubs headed by AK) so clearly biddable and not border-line. So what has the director to be convinced about?.
Presumably the director should not rule any differently just because it is the fourth pass and not an earlier one. And how would the director reject a mechanical error explanation without implying a lie having been told?

The Director must be convinced that it was a genuine slip of the hand and not a slip of the mind, inattention, distraction or similar.

I do not really see how a player shall be able to convince me that he really intended to open the auction at the time he passed, in particular if there has been any kind of discussion and exposure of hands following the fourth pass.

[ggwhiz]

 Sky Red, on 2016-January-13, 01:29, said:

1 There are four passes
2 Dealer then shows his hand saying that with a different partner he would have opened a weak two hearts.
3 This announcement “wakes up” fourth bidder (the final pass) who claims that he meant to open one club.

Fourth bidder woke up too late to be rewarded with an exposed hand auction and 13 penalty cards. I'm not in the EBU but does the criteria for correcting such a mistake ie. in the same breath not cover this?

[pran]

 ggwhiz, on 2016-January-15, 18:06, said:

Fourth bidder woke up too late to be rewarded with an exposed hand auction and 13 penalty cards. I'm not in the EBU but does the criteria for correcting such a mistake ie. in the same breath not cover this?

The laws say no such thing as "in the same breath", the criterion is "without pause for thought".

And the question is whether the player can convince the Director that he never intended to pass?

[barmar]

With bidding boxes, "unintended call" is usually interpreted to mean a slip of the hand. We'll rarely allow any case where they pull a card from a different section of the box (a call versus a bid). It's hard to accidentally pull the Pass card when you intended to make a 1-level bid.

This is not without controversy, and we've discussed it before. The law regarding unintended bidding has been around long before bidding boxes, so it applied to slips of the tongue. It's hard for some of us to imagine how those could be something other than slips of the mind, rather than mechanical errors as with bidding boxes, yet the Laws admitted the possibility (and do so similarly with unintended designations during the play). The traditional "same breath" criteria came from spoken bidding -- "1 Heart ... oops I mean 1 Spade"; I suppose this is just because almost any other attempt to claim an unintended call would be very unconvincing.

I can imagine the possibility that someone thinks "1 Heart", but due to a brain fart they say "1 Spade" without even realizing it. I'm sure we've all had situations in our lives where we were sure we said something, but the other person says we said something else. So when the director comes, you'd say "I meant to bid 1 Spade, and that's what I thought I said." The TD might believe you you seem sincere and he looks at your hand and sees 5 spades and few hearts. Although it's likely that you won't realize your unintended call until it's too late to correct it (because partner has already called).

[Zelandakh]

 barmar, on 2016-January-16, 15:49, said:

It's hard for some of us to imagine how those could be something other than slips of the mind, rather than mechanical errors as with bidding boxes, yet the Laws admitted the possibility (and do so similarly with unintended designations during the play).

Playing in Germany, I sometimes mix up "Coeur" (heart) and "Karo" (diamond) and could easily imagine doing so in spoken bidding. Not everyone plays in their primary language.

[pran]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-January-17, 09:49, said:

Playing in Germany, I sometimes mix up "Coeur" (heart) and "Karo" (diamond) and could easily imagine doing so in spoken bidding. Not everyone plays in their primary language.

Quite so, but completely irrelevant here.

This thread is about a passed out board and one of the players claiming Law 25A rectification so that his/her pass could be changed to a bid.

[nige1]

 barmar, on 2016-January-15, 09:55, said:

We've all been playing for long times, has anyone ever experienced a situation like this?

Willy Brown lost sensation in his hand, due to a war-wound. His cards sometimes fluttered face-up to the table. Of course, nobody looked at them, and he just picked them up. David Barnes, another club-member, opined that, except in Willy's case, claims of mechanical error, were dubious at best (facilitated by rationalization and poor memory of intentions). In the past few years, dozens of our opponents have claimed "slip of the hand", and, after the standard cross-examination, directors have always ruled in their favour.

 Vampyr, on 2016-January-13, 01:59, said:

Q1 IMO it is rarely correct to accept an "unintended bid" from another part of the bidding box.

Directors rarely seem to take such considerations into account.

 blackshoe, on 2016-January-13, 19:34, said:

Fourth seat who claims that he was going to open the bidding, after his opponent's comment, is going to have to be very convincing for me to allow him to change his call.

 barmar, on 2016-January-15, 09:55, said:

Like you said, someone would have to be very convincing to get me to believe that they intended to bid when they passed out the hand.

 pran, on 2016-January-15, 15:55, said:

The Director must be convinced that it was a genuine slip of the hand and not a slip of the mind, inattention, distraction or similar. I do not really see how a player shall be able to convince me that he really intended to open the auction at the time he passed, in particular if there has been any kind of discussion and exposure of hands following the fourth pass.

 pran, on 2016-January-16, 02:45, said:

And the question is whether the player can convince the Director that he never intended to pass?

Presumably, an honest friend should be able to convince the director? What about a shifty stranger? In practice, rather than open themselves to accusations of bias, directors seem to rule "slip of the hand" in cases like this.

IMO, mechanical-error rules add no value to the game, complicate the laws, generate contentious rulings, and penalize honest players. Such rules should be scrapped.

[pran]

 nige1, on 2016-January-17, 11:30, said:

IMO, mechanical-error rules add no value to the game, complicate the laws, generate contentious rulings, and penalize honest players. Such rules should be scrapped.

My impression is that particularly before 1930 (or so) Bridge and Whist were games for Gentlemen, with little need for elaborate rules. Everybody "knew" what was correct.

But there came of course to be exceptions, like the declarer in a 3NT contract who discarded a small (say) Club on the opening led Ace of Hearts and then won the next trick with his stiff King of Hearts, after which he made his twelve tricks and paid the standard three tricks penalty scoring game just made.

Culbertson shall have been asked by the player holding six hearts to AQJ whether this could be correct, and responded that "yes, such are the rules on revoke".

Maybe our Laws on Duplicate Bridge aren't that bad after all?

[nige1]

 pran, on 2016-January-17, 12:36, said:

My impression is that particularly before 1930 (or so) Bridge and Whist were games for Gentlemen, with little need for elaborate rules. Everybody "knew" what was correct. But there came of course to be exceptions, like the declarer in a 3NT contract who discarded a small (say) Club on the opening led Ace of Hearts and then won the next trick with his stiff King of Hearts, after which he made his twelve tricks and paid the standard three tricks penalty scoring game just made. Culbertson shall have been asked by the player holding six hearts to AQJ whether this could be correct, and responded that "yes, such are the rules on revoke". Maybe our Laws on Duplicate Bridge aren't that bad after all?

Other modern laws such as L23 take care of most such cases.

TFLB, L23 said:

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity7.

IMO, the laws of Bridge define a great game but they're too sophisticated. Simplifying the rules might improve the game (but won't result in perfection). Thus, nobody advocates that all rules be scrapped -- just some of the stupidest ones that complicate the game without adding discernible value.

[lamford]

I don't think the change of call here is without pause for thought, but even it it is, then we have:
"If the auction ends before it reaches the player’s partner no substitution may occur after the end of the auction period (see Law 22)."

So, once the auction has ended with three consecutive passes, that is it.

[RMB1]

 lamford, on 2016-January-17, 13:22, said:

"If the auction ends before it reaches the player’s partner no substitution may occur after the end of the auction period (see Law 22)."

So, once the auction has ended with three consecutive passes, that is it.

The auction period does not end at the end of the auction. When no one has bid, the auction period ends when the hands are returned to the board.