[shyams]

This is a hypothetical situation based on a real (innocuous) deal from a few years ago.

Face-to-face, no screens. Cross-IMPs. The bidding:

---

South gingerly pulls out ONLY the 5♦ card from the bidding box and places it next to 1♦ card. South does not bother to put the Stop card on the table either. West passes without pause, North just waves a pass card (without putting it down) and East smoothly picks up his pass card from the table to "end" the auction.

East wins trick 1, and returns the suit without too much thought. A few tricks later, South claims 11 tricks.
East: "Plus 1"
East (to West): "Guess I could have saved the overtrick" -- Concurrently North (to East): "No overtrick, just made"
The next few sentences of dialogue reveals that East thought the contract was 4♦.

East calls the Director and claims damage, stating: (a) South did not use the Stop card and (b) East was fooled by the absence of a stack of bidding cards in front of South. East claims South's actions misled him to believe the contract was 4♦. East is a strong player and there's a good chance he'd have found the switch that defeats 5♦; he claims he didn't bother because of the partscore situation (3NT looked a possible contract for NS).

How do you rule?

PS: When this actually occurred, 5♦ was unbeatable. Although East was irritated after he discovered the contract was 5♦ and not 4♦, his side gained ~1 IMP (many tables were in 3NT making 10 or 11 tricks).

[barmar]

Sorry, East doesn't get anything for this.

The purpose of the STOP card is to remind the next player to hesitate, not to remind everyone at the table that you're jumping. Whether or not a player uses it can be used in making a ruling regarding UI from tempo, but I don't think it has any place in ruling about misreading a bidding card.

And both 4♦ and 5♦ would be a "stack". I don't see how the lack of a stack suggests that it's only the 4 level -- I think it would look more like 2♦. Also, while it's not the majority, placing bidding cards one at a time is not uncommon.

[aguahombre]

So, East..who can't read numbers and is lazy on defense...is a strong player who wants the TD to help him out?

[barmar]

My partner has a habit of always announcing the contract after the auction is over, as players are putting away their bidding cards. It tends to reduce errors like this, as well as OLOOT.

[weejonnie]

Why, oh why, do players not use the stop card? Is it too hard to pull that extra little piece out of the box?

West, of course, should have paused after the skip bid - If East had any LA to 'pass' then this should be looked at - whether or not the card was shown. So it can be argued that it was West's actions that caused the confusion.

However the law (21A) is quite clear.

No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

(I might remind South of his obligation to use a stop card, but not issue a PP unless he repeated it)

[mcphee]

So the "good player" wanted redress, I laugh at him. Perhaps the director should just award e/w a zero for blaming others for his own stupidity.