If the situation is as you described it - "then has a re-think..." - I think law 22A2 is clear.  "The auction ends when ... one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in rotation".  No provision is made for having a re-think.  The point is that if they decided to pass, and did pass, then the auction has ended.

It is true that the pass did not comply with the proper form described in the Manual (27.4(i) on page D53).  But rare is the written final pass that meets the Manual's excellent standard of orthography.

All this assumes they really did pass and then rethink the situation.  If they assert "I was in the middle of doubling 2D when it occured to me to bid 2S instead" then they hadn't completed the call.  I might be wondering how they usually write a double (27.9 requires that they be consistent), and whether the hand suggested a double of 2D, and whether their pencil really was continually employed in the act of writing their call.

Although it has no force in NZ, the Australian Bridge Federation "Regulations for Written Bidding and Bidding Boxes"  (effective 2008, updated 2010) is, nonetheless, good advice: "1.3 Players must decide their call before commencing to write or to touch the bidding box. Any vacillation among calls may convey unauthorised information and restrict partner’s actions according to Laws 16B1 and 73C."  I'd be suggesting that, in a friendly way, to everyone at the table.

IMO the ""stops for a re-think" has no relevance on whether or not the pass stands. If the player was wrote the digit 2 and then stopped and had a re-think and changed it to a pass, then the pass stands. Similarly during the auction someone may do a single line as part of a double and then change it to a 2 or may write a 2 and then change it to another digit - regardless of whether or not their pencil leaves the paper (the issue of UI comes into play in such instances).

What I'm wanting a ruling on is whether, in the pass out seat, a single line can constitute a pass. I don't think this is clear. The manual says a single diagonal line = pass and that a double line indicates the bidding is ended. Taking that to it's logical conclusion if player in pass-out seat only does a single line and then the person on lead, leads - then this card must be ruled as exposed during the auction and next to bid may decide to take advantage of this by now bidding again (there may be some advantage to this as offender's partner must pass and there will be a lead penalty if they become defending side). Has anyone ever been called because someone has led a card after 3 passes where the third was only a single line?

Hi all

I would regard it as NOT completed

Although I wouldn't have any sympathy for a player who did one line, then waited a long time, then claimed opponents led out of turn

When I sat the Club Exam a question was "a player writes '1N'.  Is this complete?"

I answered yes saying it was an incontrovertible intention to bid 1NT but was marked wrong

I see this situation as equivalent

cheers

Nick

I agree that a single line is not yet a double line (or a double) in the same way that "1N" is not yet "1NT".  So in the pass out position a single line is, immediately upon being written, an incomplete call and it may be changed.

When I asked someone about this she responded quickly (with no reference to law, but with a lot of bridge playing experience): "If they meant to pass, they bloody passed."  This was with reference to the problem as originally posed where the single line might be claimed later to have been part of a double.  This clarified the question for me: what, if any, is the role of intention when deciding whether a written bid is complete or not?

Questions of intention are awkward and I would guess that the 27.4 (D53) regulations were designed to minimise - or remove - the need to assess intention.

To elaborate on my original answer (since the question has morphed a little).  If, upon being asked what happened, the 1NT opener replied
(a1) I was in the middle of passing 2D when it occured to me...
or (a2) I was in the middle of doubling 2D when it occured to me...
then we have an incomplete call, and it can be changed.

But if they reply candidly
(b) I passed and then (stop for rethink etc) it occured to me...
then that's a change of call and won't fly.

There may be players who are tempted to give self serving answers to the director's question (not in my part of the world:)  All the director can rely on are the objective facts to try to determine the caller's intent.  The most salient objective fact would be the length of time before the single line and the subsequent action, but I mentioned other things before.

If there was any doubt I would have to accept that the call was incomplete.  

I do not think that the regulations completely remove the question of intent from consideration.  And in the case raised now ("pass" followed by ditherer's partner facing the opening lead to 2D) too much has occured to allow the pass to be "completed" to 2S.  I can think of a couple of reasons for thinking that intention does matter.

First, the regulations do not talk about what constitutes a pass. (or any other call).  That is, they don't say "A call is one of the following designated marks..."  Rather they say how the calls shall be made, thereby allowing for the possibility that they might be made some other way: an infraction likely incurring a pp.

Secondly, not allowing any role for intention would lead to the following situation.  If a "completion" of a pass to 2S after some length of time would be contentious, imagine what would happen if no such "completion" occurred and the game were played very successfully in 2D.  At that point the 1NT opener could announce "that score doesn't count!" and flourish the bidding bad in evidence of the fact that the auction had never been completed and, hence, the game never played.

As I said before I would accept an incomplete call if there was any doubt.  But a line has to be drawn somewhere: if not by ditherer to complete the call, then by the director to avoid a farce.