[jallerton]

---

Screens in use, North and East are on the same side of the screen. This is the last board of a 10 board set.

East deals and opens 1NT. North pushes the tray through fully to the South/West side of the screen.

South and West both pass. South pushes the tray through fully to the North/East side of the screen.

West North places a double card on the tray and NorthEast passes. Now North pushes the tray half way through the screen.

South and West infer from the half way position of the tray that 1NT has been passed out by North. So South and West pick up their bidding cards. North and East also pick up their bidding cards.

South leads, West puts down dummy and the hand is played out in no trumps, declarer emerging with 5 tricks.

South and West write down 1NT-2, N/S +100 on their scorecards. North and East write down 1NTx-2, N/S +300 on their scorecards. South is operating the Bridgemate and enters 1NT undoubled -2, N/S +100, accepted by West.

When the players come to score up at the end of the set, the anomaly is spotted. Without talking to East/West, North/South tell a TD that this board has been mis-scored and ask him to cancel the score in the Bridgemate, which is then re-entered as 1NTx-2.

Before the start of the next set, West approaches another TD and explains what appears to have happened. The West and South hands are such that after the start 1NT P P dbl P, then either of them might have pulled the double.

How do you rule?

[Edit: directions confused in the original write-up: now corrected and properly reported(I hope)]

This post has been edited by jallerton: 2017-July-16, 10:28

[sanst]

So E bids 1NT and W doubles with none of the players noticing? They don't need screens, but a beginner's course.
The double is inadmissible, which is covered by law 36C and the score is 1NT-2. The TD who changed the score should also be sent on a course, not only because he accepts an inadmissible double, but also because he doesn't hear both sides.

[gordontd]

I suspect some directional confusion in the fourth and fifth paragraphs.

[chrism]

Unless the players are playing musical chairs and the screen is on a lazy Susan, it sounds as though paragraphs four and five should read:

North places a double card on the tray and East passes. Now North pushes the tray half way through the screen.

South and West infer from the half way position of the tray that 1NT has been passed out by North. So South and West pick up their bidding cards. North and East also pick up their biddings cards.

[chrism]

If my interpretation above is what actually occurred, then the auction was never completed (neither South nor West actually intended to pass, and picked up their bidding cards only in recognition that they believed the auction had already ended). Perhaps they should have been suspicious, however, since it should have been North who raised the screen on completion of the auction if he had indeed passed (if I understand the procedure correctly).

I would cancel the board and give some consideration to a PP for North for failing to follow proper screen procedure, which was the root cause of the problem.

[gordontd]

I wonder about Law 12A2?

[blackshoe]

How does West place a double card on the tray after he has passed and after the tray has been fully pushed through to the NE side of the screen? Not to mention that his double violates Law 19A1.

[chrism]

gordontd, on 2017-July-02, 14:12, said:

I wonder about Law 12A2?

I agree. Presumably NS -3 IMPs would be awarded as the artificial adjusted score.

Would you consider a PP in addition? Or a PP in conjunction with an AAS of 0 IMPS to both teams or -3 IMPs to both teams?

[gordontd]

chrism, on 2017-July-03, 10:16, said:

I agree. Presumably NS -3 IMPs would be awarded as the artificial adjusted score.

Would you consider a PP in addition? Or a PP in conjunction with an AAS of 0 IMPS to both teams or -3 IMPs to both teams?

Although NS are responsible for pushing the tray through, it does seem to me that EW have contributed by making an assumption rather than asking for the tray to be pushed through completely. So I don't think either side should get +3 but I might be prepared to give -3/0. Also, if Law 86D were to be invoked, I don't think there is a non-offending side.

[axman]

sanst, on 2017-July-02, 13:15, said:

So E bids 1NT and W doubles with none of the players noticing? They don't need screens, but a beginner's course.
The double is inadmissible, which is covered by law 36C and the score is 1NT-2. The TD who changed the score should also be sent on a course, not only because he accepts an inadmissible double, but also because he doesn't hear both sides.

West's talent for prescience ought to be put to higher use <g>.

[jallerton]

gordontd, on 2017-July-02, 13:36, said:

I suspect some directional confusion in the fourth and fifth paragraphs.

Yes, sorry, all. I've now corrected the original post. For avoidance of doubt, the player in 4th seat doubled 1NT.

South and West believed that the full auction had been 1NT All Pass.

North and East believed that the full auction had been 1NT Pass Pass Double All Pass.

[pran]

I was wondering what had really happened because the original OP did not make any sense at all.

With the corrected OP it is clear to me that North doubled the 1NT contract, but by failing to properly push the tray to the other side again actually signalled that he had passed.

So I would rule that the contract was undoubled, and if anything I would give a PP to North for improper handling of the tray.

North and East cannot be heard with the argument that they believed the contract was 1NT doubled so long as they both knew that South and West had had no opportunity to call after the double.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2017-July-03, 12:06, said:

Yes, sorry, all. I've now corrected the original post. For avoidance of doubt, the player in 4th seat doubled 1NT.

South and West believed that the full auction had been 1NT All Pass.

North and East believed that the full auction had been 1NT Pass Pass Double All Pass.

In fact it appears the full but incomplete auction actually was 1NT Pass Pass Double Pass.

I don't understand "he doubled, but actually signaled that he had passed". How is only passing the tray partway through any kind of signal? is this a matter of regulation? What does the regulation say?

I suspect that pushing the tray partway through is a habit or custom to allow all four players to remove their cards from the tray after the auction is over. I also suspect that the regulation does not authorize this custom.

Would West or South have bid (or redoubled) had they realized the auction wasn't over? That would probably affect the ruling.

Who's at fault for this incomplete auction? It being North's responsibility to properly remove the tray, I see him as directly at fault. I agree with gordon that EW, particularly E, are partly at fault. If it can be determined to the TD's satisfaction that both West and South would have passed had they realized what was going on, then I would say the score might be 1NT doubled making whatever it made. There is the question whether South would have defended differently had he known his partner had doubled, so that's a factor. If all that's just too hard, I would award an ArtAS, probably A- to NS, A to EW.

I don't think you can rule that the contract should be scored as undoubled, because it was in fact doubled. A club director might award the score for 1NT undoubled to the declaring side and for 1NT doubled to the defending side and call it a night, but I don't think that's legal.

Whether NS rate a PP depends on how experienced they are with screens, and what the screen regs actually say. I might not give a PP in IMPs, but if not I would certainly caution N not to cause this problem again. In fact, I'd tell all four players to be sure the tray is fully passed through until both sides of the screen have had a chance to see the full auction, including the terminal passes.

[pran]

According to the Norwegian screen regulation (which is stated to be a direct translation from the WBF regulation) North and South respectively are responsible for moving the tray, and the tray shall always be pushed all the way so that it becones visible to the other side of the screen only. (There is no such thing as pushing the tray half way through the screen!)

After the complete auction (including the three closing passes) has been visible to each side of the screen the bid cards are removed from the tray, the opening lead is made, and the screen window is opened by West.

Apparently the club in question has established its own private screen regulation?

[sanst]

This is a total mess, caused by not uncommon carelessness. It's impossible to figure out what would actually have happened, should S and W have seen the double, especially so since we don't have the hands. So I'm with blackshoe with an AAS, but it's going to be A- for both sides. I don't think it's right to make N, and thus NS, more responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table than the other contestants. I, for one, would refuse to be put in that position and nowhere in the laws it says so. IMNSHO the wording of Law 7D should be "All contestants at a table are equally responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table".
Anyway, I maintain that the TD made a mistake by changing the score without hearing EW, especially since it was to their disadvantage. He should have decided that the score that was entered in the Bridgemate was agreed upon by both sides and should thus stand.

[pran]

sanst, on 2017-July-04, 02:51, said:

This is a total mess, caused by not uncommon carelessness. It's impossible to figure out what would actually have happened, should S and W have seen the double, especially so since we don't have the hands. So I'm with blackshoe with an AAS, but it's going to be A- for both sides. I don't think it's right to make N, and thus NS, more responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table than the other contestants. I, for one, would refuse to be put in that position and nowhere in the laws it says so. IMNSHO the wording of Law 7D should be "All contestants at a table are equally responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table".
Anyway, I maintain that the TD made a mistake by changing the score without hearing EW, especially since it was to their disadvantage. He should have decided that the score that was entered in the Bridgemate was agreed upon by both sides and should thus stand.

Well,
WBF places the whole responsibility for correct movement of the tray solely on North and South respectively.
But once the club has established their own procedures - - - - -

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-04, 03:36, said:

Well,
WBF places the whole responsibility for correct movement of the tray solely on North and South respectively.
But once the club has established their own procedures - - - - -

What club?

[Zelandakh]

Sorry pran but your argument does not really stand up to inspection. What if 1NT had made 7 tricks? Would you still cancel the double? North certainly violated some screen procedure but you can hardly extrapolate from that to not only take the bidding card out of their hand but even off the tray itself! What remains is to look at the local screen regulations themselves and see if incidents such as this are covered. Are we under EBU jurisdiction in the OP or something else? Unlike pran's translation of the WBF screen regulations, the EBU version has only this:-

Quote

It is North’s responsibility to place the board on, and to remove the board from, the bidding tray. The sequence is this: North places the board on the bidding tray after which the aperture is closed (and remains so during the whole of the auction period) so that the bidding tray can just pass under it after which the players remove the cards from the board.

and then

Quote

After two players on the same side of the screen have made their calls, North or South (as the case may be) slides the bidding tray under the centre of the screen so as to be visible only to the players on the other side.

There is nothing here about sole responsibility for noticing an error on passing the tray and so I would expect the joint responsibility from previous versions of the regulations still to be in force (from memory it even explicitly stated in earlier versions of the White Book that the tray being passed incorrectly was both sides at fault).

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2017-July-04, 06:37, said:

What club?

Indeed. I don't think this occurred in a club game; more likely an event at Montecatini which often had 10-board sets. As Zel states:
"After two players on the same side of the screen have made their calls, North or South (as the case may be) slides the bidding tray under the centre of the screen so as to be visible only to the players on the other side."

I would regard NS as to blame here therefore, and award them the worse of the two possible scores. North or South failed to ensure that the bidding tray was visible only to the players on the other side.

[gordontd]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-04, 07:56, said:

Are we under EBU jurisdiction in the OP or something else?

EBL, according to the thread title.