[One Short]

The auction ends with the third consecutive pass (Law22A 2)
Regulation OB 7B2 tells us how we should make the call (remove the final pass card from the bidding card box and neatly overlap it etc.)
However we don’t always do that. Sometimes we just tap the table, other times we might actually say “pass” or even scoop up all the cards and return them to the bidding box. Furthermore, if the person with whom the auction would end is also the bridgemate operator, none of the above happens because the operator begins to enter the final contract. Well and good as we all know it is glaringly obvious that the auction has ended.
Now this is what happened on the final round of the auction:
RHO passed
Next bidder pulled out the Stop Card (only he wasn’t looking – it was a pass card – genuine error – Law 25 applicable to allow substitution)
LHO quick as a flash passed
Bidder’s partner (also with alacrity) reached for the bridgemate from the side-table while at the same time the bidder slowly made his intended call.
The Director is called and the question is this :- Should the Director stand on ceremony and deem the bidder’s partner not yet to have made the call of pass (thereby allowing the substitution) or should the bidder be left high and dry and not be allowed his intended bid.?

[Vampyr]

 One Short, on 2012-April-01, 16:36, said:

Should the Director stand on ceremony and deem the bidder’s partner not yet to have made the call of pass (thereby allowing the substitution) or should the bidder be left high and dry and not be allowed his intended bid.?

Yuck. I think it has to be the latter; otherwise players who pass irregularly in the pass-out seat (probably the majority) will get away with murder. I think that an "implied pass" has to count as a pass. People who do not like this can make a habit of always passing correctly (I don't mean to throw stones; I am certainly a guilty party).

[blackshoe]

A pass is made when the regulation says a pass is made. If someone made an unintended call, and his partner didn't pass, then he can change it. If this gets abused, then the director will have to deal with that.

Yes, I've been guilty of this "pass that is not a pass" business, too. Still, I try hard not to do it, and I don't like it when others do it. Call me a Secretary Bird if you like, I don't care.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2012-April-01, 17:18, said:

A pass is made when the regulation says a pass is made. If someone made an unintended call, and his partner didn't pass, then he can change it. If this gets abused, then the director will have to deal with that.

Isn't this case an example of such "abuse"? Or do you mean if it gets abused repeatedly? The problem is that many players habitually end the auction like this, it only gets noticed when it happens coincident with some other strange action, as in the OP. So the TD isn't likely to notice repeated abuse, they'll only get called in the problem situations. So they look like isolated incidents, but they're not -- they're just the tip of the iceberg.

[gordontd]

This was discussed by the EBU L&E committee last year.

Quote

5 Technical Matters
5.1 Pass not being a pass
The committee considered the following auction reported from the Year End Congress.
(W) 1NT – (N) 3♦ - (E) double – (S) pass
When the auction came back the West - 1NT bidder (thinking that the double was actually a pass
card and that she was therefore in the pass out seat) started to pick up the bidding cards (without
contributing a pass card to the auction). The player then realised that she was not in the pass-out
seat but she considered her action was the equivalent of a pass and could not therefore be
changed. The TD did let her change her call.
The Committee confirmed that in this case, since there had been no pass card and it was
not in the pass out seat there had been no pass. The player could have still made a legal
call.
It was acknowledged however that many players at all levels do not always complete the auction in
the prescribed way (examples included touching a pass card already on the table, sweeping up the
cards before any lead has been placed on the table). But it was confirmed that if a player acted in
this way AND a lead had been faced then in accordance with Law 41C the play period had begun
irrevocably.
MB suggested that the regulation applicable to events played with screens might be added to the
bidding box regulations in the Orange Book to be applicable in all events:
‘When a player acts in such a way as to indicate they have passed and an opening lead is faced
they have passed. An action may be deemed by the TD to be a pass in the pass out seat (eg.
General ‘waft’ of the hand, tapping cards already there, picking up the cards)’

And indeed in its latest edition the Orange Book now contains:

Quote

7 B 11 Some players do not always complete the auction properly by laying a pass card on
the table in the pass out seat. Usually this does not cause a problem. When a player
acts in such a way as to indicate they have passed and an opening lead is faced they
have passed. An action may be deemed by the TD to be a pass in the pass out seat
(eg. General ‘waft’ of the hand, tapping cards already there, picking up the cards).

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2012-April-01, 23:46, said:

Isn't this case an example of such "abuse"? Or do you mean if it gets abused repeatedly? The problem is that many players habitually end the auction like this, it only gets noticed when it happens coincident with some other strange action, as in the OP. So the TD isn't likely to notice repeated abuse, they'll only get called in the problem situations. So they look like isolated incidents, but they're not -- they're just the tip of the iceberg.

Would be nice if we could upvote yellows.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2012-April-02, 07:18, said:

Would be nice if we could upvote yellows.

Virtue is its own reward.

[ahydra]

There must be something I don't follow here. If RHO passed, our guy passed (by accident), and LHO passed, and this is "the final" rather than "the first" round of the auction, surely the auction is over. Therefore our guy's partner has not passed since he hasn't actually had a chance to make a call, and the replacement bid should be allowed.

ahydra

[Vampyr]

 ahydra, on 2012-April-02, 09:50, said:

There must be something I don't follow here. If RHO passed, our guy passed (by accident), and LHO passed, and this is "the final" rather than "the first" round of the auction, surely the auction is over. Therefore our guy's partner has not passed since he hasn't actually had a chance to make a call, and the replacement bid should be allowed.

What do you mean? He did have a chance, and used it to start entering into the Bridgemate.

[FrancesHinden]

 One Short, on 2012-April-01, 16:36, said:

The auction ends with the third consecutive pass (Law22A 2)

Now this is what happened on the final round of the auction:
RHO passed
Next bidder pulled out the Stop Card (only he wasn’t looking – it was a pass card – genuine error – Law 25 applicable to allow substitution)
LHO quick as a flash passed
Bidder’s partner (also with alacrity) reached for the bridgemate from the side-table while at the same time the bidder slowly made his intended call.
The Director is called and the question is this :- Should the Director stand on ceremony and deem the bidder’s partner not yet to have made the call of pass (thereby allowing the substitution) or should the bidder be left high and dry and not be allowed his intended bid.?

I also don't get this. The "bidder"'s partner hasn't passed in any way (whether with a green card or entering the contract) because there have been three consecutive passes before him, as far as he knows the auction is over.

Anyway, he can't change his 'pass' because the auction is over (see 25A & 22)

[jallerton]

 One Short, on 2012-April-01, 16:36, said:

The auction ends with the third consecutive pass (Law22A 2)
Regulation OB 7B2 tells us how we should make the call (remove the final pass card from the bidding card box and neatly overlap it etc.)
However we don’t always do that. Sometimes we just tap the table, other times we might actually say “pass” or even scoop up all the cards and return them to the bidding box. Furthermore, if the person with whom the auction would end is also the bridgemate operator, none of the above happens because the operator begins to enter the final contract. Well and good as we all know it is glaringly obvious that the auction has ended.
Now this is what happened on the final round of the auction:
RHO passed
Next bidder pulled out the Stop Card (only he wasn’t looking – it was a pass card – genuine error – Law 25 applicable to allow substitution)
LHO quick as a flash passed
Bidder’s partner (also with alacrity) reached for the bridgemate from the side-table while at the same time the bidder slowly made his intended call.
The Director is called and the question is this :- Should the Director stand on ceremony and deem the bidder’s partner not yet to have made the call of pass (thereby allowing the substitution) or should the bidder be left high and dry and not be allowed his intended bid.?

It's all a matter of timing.

I know that some organisations have twisted the wording of Law 25A, but I always like to read the Law itself.

Law25A said:

A. Unintended Call

1. Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.

When was the intended call made?

EBU Orange Book, section 7B2 said:

Starting with the dealer, players place their calls on the table in front of them, from the left and neatly overlapping, so that all calls are visible and faced towards partner. Players should refrain from touching any cards in the box until they have determined their call. A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent (but the TD may apply Law 25).

If, as seems quite likely, the 'stop' bidder had reached the stage of taking some bidding cards out of his bidding box before his partner had fiddled with the Bridgemate then he is still in the "until his partner has called" period.

However, reading further in to Law 25A we get to:

Law25A said:

3. 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).

Law 22 says:

Quote

A. End of Auction

The auction ends when:

all four players pass (but see Law 25). The hands are returned to the board without play. There shall not be a redeal.

one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in rotation subsequent to the last bid. The last bid becomes the contract (but see Law 19D).

The OP says that this was the "final" round of the auction, suggesting that someone had already made a bid. Thus it appears that the Bridgemate user's antics are a red herring: there had already been three passes (the second of which was unintended) and the auction is over.

[blackshoe]

I think you're mistaken, Frances.

Quote

Law 25A3: 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).

Quote

Law 22B1: the auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2 above, either defender faces an opening lead.

No opening lead has been faced, so the auction period has not ended. So per 25A3, a substitution is allowed.

[Vampyr]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-02, 14:09, said:

I also don't get this. The "bidder"'s partner hasn't passed in any way (whether with a green card or entering the contract) because there have been three consecutive passes before him, as far as he knows the auction is over.

Anyway, he can't change his 'pass' because the auction is over (see 25A & 22)

Oh, right. I was under the impression that the hand was about to be passed out.

This not being the case, it seems pretty clear that according to 25A and 22 he can change, because the auction period is not over -- it ends when an opening lead is faced.

By the way, why is the "bidder" doing everything so slowly? Did he never even do anything like say "Hang on a minute"?

EDIT: was beaten to it, but still interested in last questions.

[jallerton]

Now this is getting confusing. The "auction" is over but the "auction period" is not.

[Vampyr]

 jallerton, on 2012-April-02, 14:23, said:

Now this is getting confusing. The "auction" is over but the "auction period" is not.

Ah, the zany hijinks that comprise the game of bridge.

[mycroft]

The time between the end of the auction and the end of the auction period is called the clarification period at which clarifications can be made. Some of these clarifications will allow or require the TD to reopen the auction, frequently by cancelling calls or allowing calls to be changed.

I think that anybody who tries to fast-pass a Stop-bid (especially a green Stop card of a cuebid) should, at worst, be allowed to do so (if legally we can't change it) and then the story published as far and as wide and as named as possible.

But I've been known to be passive-aggressive on occasion.

I am certainly glad that when I doubled my partner's Alertable call out of turn, that my opponents went from "you can't do that!" to "oh, that's what you meant to do. Please explain" in two seconds, and didn't try anything odd.

[One Short]

All my fault in the OP

Yes in reality it was the final round and therefore bidder's partner would not have a bid to make.

However, what I was trying to do was create a situation for your views where bidder's partner's pass would end the auction. This would happen if RHO was declarer and had opened with a pass. Bidder, in second seat, wants to bid say 2NT, but pulls out the pass card instead of the stop card. LHO and bidder's partner are far too quick and the intended bid is being made at the same time that bidder's partner reaches for the bridgemate.

Is the bidder too late to change either by Law or Orange Book; or is the TD allowed by common sense to decide either way?

Yes I was the bidder and the TD allowed me to change my call to a stone cold 6♥

[blackshoe]

I do not think the TD is "allowed by common sense to decide either way". Either 25A applies, or it does not. It applies if partner has not passed, and technically, per the bidding box regulations, he has not. OTOH, if the partner has passed, Law 25 does not apply. If the RA (the EBU in this case) has issued an interpretation of law or a regulation saying, basically, that actions people take in lieu of a legitimate pass are deemed to be passes, then partner has passed. Absent such an interpretation or regulation, he has not. I agree with the table TD's ruling.

[gordontd]

 blackshoe, on 2012-April-03, 06:35, said:

If the RA (the EBU in this case) has issued an interpretation of law or a regulation saying, basically, that actions people take in lieu of a legitimate pass are deemed to be passes, then partner has passed.

That's not quite what they've said: they've said such actions may be deemed to be passes, and once the opening lead has been made they are deemed to be passes. The concern was to avoid casting doubt on the status of all the millions of auctions in the past that finished with an irregular pass.

[blackshoe]

That's fair enough, but it doesn't tell anyone how to decide when such actions are passes. In that sense, for a live auction, it is a useless interpretation, and I would ignore it. Others would say "it gives the TD leeway to decide on a case by case basis", and use it. That's okay, I suppose, but how do you ensure reasonable uniformity of decisions, not only across all TDs, but even for a single one? I think it's too open to abuse. Note: "reasonable", not "absolute".