[dan_ehh]

Hi All,

Screens are used with EU regulations. Team game.

North is dealer, EW pass throughout.
The auction is 1D-p-2NT-p-3NT-p*.
Now, for some reason, North and East clear out their bids. The tray passes back empty to South and West.

South makes exactly 8 tricks, but at the end they discover that East was defending against 3NT but West and South thought the contract was 2NT. Declarer calls TD and says he played safely for 8 tricks, but he would have played differently if he had known the contract is 3NT. The cards support Declarer's statement. 3NT was bid and made in the other table.

How do you rule?

Thanks,
Dan

[blackshoe]

Not surprisingly, neither the EBL screen regulation nor the laws deals explicitly with this problem. It seems to me that both North and East are partly responsible, so there is no "non-offending" side. Now Law 12A says:

Quote

1. The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.
2. The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below).
3. The Director may award an adjusted score if there has been an incorrect rectification of an irregularity.

It seems to me that 1 does not apply (no "non-offending" side), and 3 does not apply (no rectification has been applied). That leaves 2, and I would apply it, since we can't go back and "replay" the board. I would award an artificial adjusted score considering both sides partly at fault, thus Average (0 IMPs) to both sides. If North and East are experienced, I would issue both a PP.

This hand was played without a completed auction. The "result" obtained at the table cannot apply.

According to my reading of the EBL screen regulation, it is an infraction to remove bidding cards from the tray until all four players have had an opportunity to view the complete auction. I would tell the players — whether or not I've issue PPs — not to do this again.

[pran]

North and West are responsible: (I wouldn't bother too much about East's part in the irregularities)

North and South (respectively) are responsible for moving the tray to the other side of the screen, and West is responsible for opening and closing the screen "window".

North has committed an error by moving the tray without the two last calls by North and East, and West has committed an error by opening the window without having seen a complete auction (ending with three consecutive passes) on the tray.

So they have not reached any contract and as blackshoe writes: "The result obtained at the table cannot apply" (both sides fully at fault)

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-April-11, 15:59, said:

North and West are responsible: (I wouldn't bother too much about East's part in the irregularities)

North and South (respectively) are responsible for moving the tray to the other side of the screen, and West is responsible for opening and closing the screen "window".

North has committed an error by moving the tray without the two last calls by North and East, and West has committed an error by opening the window without having seen a complete auction (ending with three consecutive passes) on the tray.

So they have not reached any contract and as blackshoe writes: "The result obtained at the table cannot apply" (both sides fully at fault)

Would you give them both average minus, then?

[mgoetze]

 blackshoe, on 2014-April-11, 14:25, said:

According to my reading of the EBL screen regulation, it is an infraction to remove bidding cards from the tray until all four players have had an opportunity to view the complete auction. I would tell the players — whether or not I've issue PPs — not to do this again.

If that is indeed what the regulation says then there are infractions on well over 90% of all boards.

[blackshoe]

 mgoetze, on 2014-April-11, 19:16, said:

If that is indeed what the regulation says then there are infractions on well over 90% of all boards.

Is this a surprise?

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-April-11, 18:20, said:

Would you give them both average minus, then?

Quite likely, but I haven't really considered that far.

In case it will be a split score with each team paying out 3 IMP on the board.

[jallerton]

 dan_ehh, on 2014-April-11, 09:22, said:

Hi All,

Screens are used with EU regulations. Team game.

North is dealer, EW pass throughout.
The auction is 1D-p-2NT-p-3NT-p*.
Now, for some reason, North and East clear out their bids. The tray passes back empty to South and West.

South makes exactly 8 tricks, but at the end they discover that East was defending against 3NT but West and South thought the contract was 2NT. Declarer calls TD and says he played safely for 8 tricks, but he would have played differently if he had known the contract is 3NT. The cards support Declarer's statement. 3NT was bid and made in the other table.

How do you rule?

Thanks,
Dan

I agree with mgoetze. In practice, virtually "everybody" on the side of the screen on which the final pass has been made picks up their own bidding cards before passing the tray back to the other side. The main exception to this is after a long auction, but even then someone often has to ask the other side of the screen to "leave them out" or "put them back". This may be technically incorrect, but it's custom and practice.

So I would rule that the infractions which caused the problem were those of North and East, who picked up their bidding cards prematurely; moreover, North failed to communicate the N/E calls to the other side of the sceen and East failed to ensure that North had done so.

I don't agree with cancelling the board under Law 12C2 as result was obtained through "normal play" (or as close to normal as any result which subsequently gets adjusted by the TD) in the sense that the hand was played out, no-one revoked and everyone agreed that there were no trumps.

Blackshoe suggests that there is no offending side. I think that both sides are offending!

Sorry, if this is a Kaplan approach, but the ruling I'd like to end up with is a split score: N/S score 2NT=, E/W concede 3NT making. In ACBL-land, this would just be an applicatoion of Law 12C1e(ii).

In the EBL, where 12C1c suggests that the norm should be to award balancing scores notwithstanding 12C1f, we have to be more imaginative look in to the Laws more deeply. North's 3NT bid was not communicated across the screen and in effect he has changed it to a pass (the change having been accepted by East under Law 25B1). The practical communication from N/E to S/W was that both North and East had passed over 2NT. So I rule that the contract as played at the table was 2NT by South making 8 tricks.

I now adjust the E/W score using Law 23 as East "could have known" that his infraction could damage the other side. North/South do not receive the benefit of an adjusted score because they are also an offending side. North's actions have clearly been "wild" and I suppose we could argue that Law 12C1b applies because North's failure to ensure that the tray was passed over showing the correct bids was after East's infraction of picking his bidding cards up.

[aguahombre]

Ed said there was no non-offending side; he didn't say there was no offending side.

[gordontd]

 jallerton, on 2014-April-12, 05:12, said:

North's 3NT bid was not communicated across the screen and in effect he has changed it to a pass (the change having been accepted by East under Law 25B1).

The EBL screen regulations require any such change to have been made under the TD's supervision.

Our EBU screen regulations don't allow any change under L25B in any case, and I have been led to believe that the EBL version of the wording was due to careless drafting and they wouldn't really allow a change of this sort.

[mfa1010]

I disagree with "imaginative" rulings like 3N was taken back. It was not. The ruling should reflect what really happened.

The play as it went should be cancelled, since the players were playing in different (and wrong) contracts.

N&E are equally at fault. I disagree with blaming W for opening the screens.

We have two options.
1) To cancel the board and award artificial score
2) To adjust the score to 3N (the contract bid but unfortunately not played) with some number of tricks, maybe weighted under 12C1c if various outcomes in 3N were possible.

I would go for (2).

I don't see any reason for liking a punative split score, but I might want to give PPs, especially if N&E are experienced using screens.

[barmar]

 mgoetze, on 2014-April-11, 19:16, said:

If that is indeed what the regulation says then there are infractions on well over 90% of all boards.

And most of the time, the infraction doesn't cause any problems, so we let it slide. But when the infraction results in a problem, we throw the book at the perpetrators.

We've had similar discussions regarding other common infractions, like failure to obey skip bid regulations, or making the last pass by picking up your bidding cards.

[aguahombre]

Everyone agrees with everything, right? Both people who picked up bid cards admit it, everyone agrees Declarer was on the other side of the screen and thought he was in 2NT; it is easily shown declarer took a super conservation line to make just two.

Lawyering anything other than a wash in IMPS for the board is a joke. If you want to play with offsetting PP's, so be it.

[mfa1010]

 aguahombre, on 2014-April-12, 20:12, said:

Lawyering anything other than a wash in IMPS for the board is a joke.

I don't know what "a wash" means, but I take it that you are cancelling the board in spite of they did bid the hand to 3N before the screw-up.

Would it also be "a joke" not to cancel the board, if the result at the other table were 6♦= +1370?

 barmar, on 2014-April-12, 20:09, said:

And most of the time, the infraction doesn't cause any problems, so we let it slide. But when the infraction results in a problem, we throw the book at the perpetrators.

This is a terrible and sad situation.

One of the biggest challenges for our great game is that we need to reduce the distance between directors and players. Sometimes players feel that directors are on a different planet, issuing incomprehensible rulings based on little known regulations. Which btw is one of the reasons that directors are not always being involved when they should be.

[aguahombre]

 mfa1010, on 2014-April-13, 02:42, said:

I don't know what "a wash" means, but I take it that you are cancelling the board in spite of they did bid the hand to 3N before the screw-up.

Would it also be "a joke" not to cancel the board, if the result at the other table were 6♦= +1370?

Well, if awarding zero IMPs to each side, as Ed states right off the bat in this thread, is cancelling the board, then yes. A wash means that.

Whether the pair bid slam at the other table, or they played conservatively to go down one at 3NT, or whatever, the same ruling should apply IMO. Both sides caused the board to be played without a proper auction at that table, thus fowling it beyond salvage.

[axman]

 dan_ehh, on 2014-April-11, 09:22, said:

Hi All,

Screens are used with EU regulations. Team game.

North is dealer, EW pass throughout.
The auction is 1D-p-2NT-p-3NT-p*.
Now, for some reason, North and East clear out their bids. The tray passes back empty to South and West.

South makes exactly 8 tricks, but at the end they discover that East was defending against 3NT but West and South thought the contract was 2NT. Declarer calls TD and says he played safely for 8 tricks, but he would have played differently if he had known the contract is 3NT. The cards support Declarer's statement. 3NT was bid and made in the other table.

How do you rule?

Thanks,
Dan

Sometimes it is difficult to sift the wheat from the chafe.

First, what was the last bid? 3N.

Is the auction complete?

Many players use the picking up of their bidding cards as a euphemism for pass. This is sufficient to rule the auction complete.

The argument that S & W were not fully aware of what occurred on the other side, and thus did not call by euphemism is invalid:

LAW 21A. No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

Which also speaks to not adjusting for the play.

In theory, regulations are devised to protect the players; and for players that cannot be bothered to satisfy the regulations should not be indemnified.

Table result stands.

[Trinidad]

 mfa1010, on 2014-April-13, 02:42, said:

I don't know what "a wash" means, but I take it that you are cancelling the board in spite of they did bid the hand to 3N before the screw-up.

A wash means "no score on the board". This means that aguahombre is adjusting to 3NT making. That is a possible ruling, and not even a particularly bad one, but aguahombre doesn't know that.

 mfa1010, on 2014-April-13, 02:42, said:

Would it also be "a joke" not to cancel the board, if the result at the other table were 6♦= +1370?

Aguahombre seems to rule a wash, regardless of the score at the other table. So, yes, in that case he would rule that the result at this table would have been +1370, even when the only possible outcomes would have been +120, +600 and -100.

 aguahombre, on 2014-April-13, 04:47, said:

Well, if awarding zero IMPs to each side, as Ed states right off the bat in this thread, is cancelling the board, then yes. A wash means that.

Whether the pair bid slam at the other table, or they played conservatively to go down one at 3NT, or whatever, the same ruling should apply IMO. Both sides caused the board to be played without a proper auction at that table, thus fowling it beyond salvage.

Of course, it is not fouled beyond salvage.

For starters, both sides committed a clear infraction, so both are at fault. We are going to judge what would have happened, if the infraction had not occurred. That means we look what would have happened if North and East would have left their 3NT and pass cards on the trey and moved the trey through the screen.

Obviously, it is hard to say what would have happened then, without seeing the hands. But let's assume that South and West would have passed (not unreasonable). They put their pass cards on the trey. They move the trey through the screen. North comments to East: "They could have just taken their bids off already."

Now the contract is 3NT. We need to judge how the play will go. Declarer took 8 tricks, but he claims that he would have taken 9 without the infraction. We need to judge how likely it is that declarer is correct about that.
If we are certain that declarer is right, we give him 9 tricks, since that is what would have happened without the infraction. Result: A wash
If we are certain that declarer is wrong, we give him 8 tricks, since that is what would have happened without the infraction. Result: -1 and, depending on the vulnerability, 10 or 12 IMPs change hands.
And if we don't know with reasonable certainty, we give both sides the worst score that is at all likely for their side in the ACBL (meaning -10/12 to NS and 0 to EW), and a weighted score in the rest of the world (meaning something like (-5/6 to NS and +5/6 to EW, depending on the weighting factors).

Now, to answer Mikael's question: Suppose that the score on the other table would have been +1370, what then?
It goes along similar lines, but the numbers are different.
If we are certain that declarer is right (about taking 9 tricks), we give him 9 tricks, since that is what would have happened without the infraction. Result: 600-1370 =-770. -13 IMPs to NS, +13 IMPs to EW.
If we are certain that declarer is wrong, we give him 8 tricks, since that is what would have happened without the infraction. Result: -100-1370=-1470. -16 IMPs to NS and +16 IMPs to EW.
And if we don't know with reasonable certainty, we give both sides the worst score that is at all likely for their side in the ACBL (meaning -16 IMPs to NS and +13 to EW), and a weighted score in the rest of the world (meaning something like (-14.5 IMPs to NS and +14.5 IMPs to EW, depending on the weighting factors).

Rik

[Trinidad]

 mfa1010, on 2014-April-13, 02:42, said:

This (letting infractions pass by, unless they cause problems when we throw the book) is a terrible and sad situation.

One of the biggest challenges for our great game is that we need to reduce the distance between directors and players. Sometimes players feel that directors are on a different planet, issuing incomprehensible rulings based on little known regulations. Which btw is one of the reasons that directors are not always being involved when they should be.

I agree. But there is often a good reason why the regulation is like it is.

Here we see what can happen if the regulation is not followed, and hence, why the regulation is like it is.

In my opinion, it is one of the tasks of the WBF, NBOs, TDs, other officials, ACs, coaches, (non-) playing captains, etc. to keep educating players why a regulation is what it is and what problem it is preventing or solving. At the same time, it is the task of any player who takes the game seriously (and when you play with screens, you usually are) to educate himself and be open to learn from the above list of educators.

Though I do think that there is considerable room for improvement on the side of the WBF, NBO, ..., etc, I do think that TDs (in general) are better teachers than the players (in general) are students.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Rik's ruling is not unreasonable, but before he gives it, he should want to be sure neither of the players who didn't get a chance to bid over 3NT would have done so.

Someone mentioned 12C1{e}. The ruling he was suggesting does not conform to that law.

Law 21A does not apply here. Neither South nor West ever saw the 3NT bid, because of infractions by North and East. That is not an "own misunderstanding" situation.

[aguahombre]

 Trinidad, on 2014-April-13, 08:44, said:

A wash means "no score on the board". This means that aguahombre is adjusting to 3NT making. That is a possible ruling, and not even a particularly bad one, but aguahombre doesn't know that.

Aguahombre seems to rule a wash, regardless of the score at the other table. So, yes, in that case he would rule that the result at this table would have been +1370, even when the only possible outcomes would have been +120, +600 and -100.

Of course, it is not fouled beyond salvage.

Actually, if a wash means no score on the board, to me it means zero IMPS differential on the board. It doesn't mean adjusting to anything which looks like a score at either table.

The reason I believe it is fouled beyond salvage is because the auction wasn't over. The 1370 reference seems a bit overboard. But it is possible if 2NT was forcing and responder was intending to continue quanititatively over 3NT; Declarer still would be ultra safely playing what he thought was his 2NT contract and preparing to discuss their bidding misunderstanding at a later time.