[robdixon87]

So I came across an interesting one at the club tonight. Board 19, Dealer S. When I arrive at the table, both North and South have pass cards in front of them on the table, East and West have nothing. It then transpires that North's pass was put down first. South's pass was not simultaneous, but South claims they did not see what North had done when they put their pass down.

What options do you give to whom, and in what order, and do any further options depend on previous options being chosen by a non-offender?

Typically, this turned up right at the end of the evening (at about 11.20pm or so) and the end of a hellish evening running a Swiss Teams of 21 (so yes, a triangle and all) where people seemed to be incapable of following simple instructions and someone decided to throw a 'suprise' wine and nibbles in the break for someone's birthday...

[Bbradley62]

<<mis-read>>

[campboy]

It isn't entirely clear from the laws which infraction we deal with first. A similar situation is discussed in this thread.

[blackshoe]

Either North has passed out of turn "simultaneously" with South's pass in turn, or North has passed out of turn and then South has passed out of turn. Given that South didn't see North's pass, I think a case can be made for simultaneity. In that case, East shall be given the opportunity to accept North's pass (Law 29A). If he does, the auction proceeds from there. If he does not, his pass is cancelled, and it's West's turn to call. After West, North must pass (once) and Law 23 may apply (but I probably wouldn't) (Law 30A).

In the second scenario, "simultaneity" being deemed not an option, we can proceed in one of two ways. First way: Start with South's pass. Give West the opportunity to accept it. If he doesn't, give East the opportunity to accept North's pass. If he doesn't, the auction reverts to South. Second way: Start with North's pass. Give East the opportunity to accept it. If he doesn't, give West the opportunity to accept South's pass. If he doesn't, the auction reverts to South. In either case, if the first of EW to decide accepts the pass, you still have the other pass hanging around, so you give the other of EW the opportunity to accept it. If he does, proceed with the auction.

All things considered I prefer the first ("simultaneity") approach in this particular case. I don't know if I'd want to make a habit of it.

Note: Law 30A applies when either of these passes is cancelled, in the second scenario.

[bluejak]

robdixon87, on 2012-December-05, 18:51, said:

It then transpires that North's pass was put down first. South's pass was not simultaneous, but South claims they did not see what North had done when they put their pass down.

blackshoe, on 2012-December-06, 09:58, said:

Given that South didn't see North's pass, I think a case can be made for simultaneity.

Not given the OP.