[jallerton]

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.

I haven't supplied the hands because I am more interested in the legal side of the case. Assuming that the hands were available, would you consider a (possibly weighted) adjustment based on your judgement of what would/might have happened had South & West seen the double?

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on 2017-July-03, 18:11, said:

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.

Yes, pushing the tray part way through after the auction is over is a custom/habit amongst some players (typically the ones who plan to remove the tray from the table at the end of the auction) and yes the regulations do not authorise this practice.

The EBL 2017 screen regulations say the following:

Quote

The North and East players sit on the same side of the screen throughout. 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. The  players remove the cards from the board.  Calls are made with the cards from the bidding box. The player places the selected call in the bidding tray, which will be visible only on the player's side of the screen. 
A player's first call should touch the extreme left of his own segment of the bidding tray, with subsequent calls overlapping neatly and evenly to the right. 
Players should make every effort to perform these actions as quietly as possible. With screens in use a call is considered 'made' when placed on the tray and released. 
A player who removes one or more of his bidding cards from the tray in an apparent attempt to “pass” is indeed deemed to have “passed”. 
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. 
They then make their calls in like manner and the bidding tray is slid back again. This procedure is continued until the auction is completed. It is considered desirable that players should vary the tempo randomly when returning the tray under the screen. 
After all four players have had the opportunity to review the auction (equivalent to the right of having the auction restated) the players replace their bidding cards in their respective bidding  boxes. 

[pran]

jallerton, on 2017-July-10, 15:52, said:

Yes, pushing the tray part way through after the auction is over is a custom/habit amongst some players (typically the ones who plan to remove the tray from the table at the end of the auction) and yes the regulations do not authorise this practice.

This confirms that they have indeed made up their own screen regulation.

They prevent the other side of the screen from inspecting the complete auction before the opening lead, a possibility that is explicitly required both by law and by official regulation.

And North and East did in fact signal to South and West that they had completed the auction by passing, so I see no legal alternative to ruling that the contract was 1NT undoubled. (The actual hands make no difference for my opinion here).

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2017-July-11, 03:33, said:

This confirms that they have indeed made up their own screen regulation.

They prevent the other side of the screen from inspecting the complete auction before the opening lead, a possibility that is explicitly required both by law and by official regulation.

And North and East did in fact signal to South and West that they had completed the auction by passing, so I see no legal alternative to ruling that the contract was 1NT undoubled. (The actual hands make no difference for my opinion here).

Under which law are you removing North's double? It was clearly made according to the EBL regulations:

Quote

With screens in use a call is considered 'made' when placed on the tray and released.

And as asked previously, would you still insist on the contract being 1NT undoubled if it made 7+ tricks and therefore North gained through their infraction? You seem to me to be on very shaky legal ground here pran.

[pran]

pran, on 2017-July-11, 03:33, said:

This confirms that they have indeed made up their own screen regulation.

They prevent the other side of the screen from inspecting the complete auction before the opening lead, a possibility that is explicitly required both by law and by official regulation.

And North and East did in fact signal to South and West that they had completed the auction by passing, so I see no legal alternative to ruling that the contract was 1NT undoubled. (The actual hands make no difference for my opinion here).

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-11, 03:41, said:

Under which law are you removing North's double? It was clearly made according to the EBL regulations:

Quote

With screens in use a call is considered 'made' when placed on the tray and released.

But although the double was placed on the tray it was never "released"!

How North fumbled with the tray is not important, what counts is what was "released" to the other side of the screen. Here the only message "released" was that the auction had ended, and the only way this could happen is by North completing the auction with a pass.

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-11, 03:41, said:

And as asked previously, would you still insist on the contract being 1NT undoubled if it made 7+ tricks and therefore North gained through their infraction? You seem to me to be on very shaky legal ground here pran.

East was party to the infraction by not insisting that the tray should be pushed all the way through the screen according to regulation, so yes, I would not let him gain from a doubled contract.
However, I might take this alleged gain for the North/South side into consideration when assessing a PP on North..

[kevperk]

pran, on 2017-July-11, 04:20, said:

But although the double was placed on the tray it was never "released"!

How North fumbled with the tray is not important, what counts is what was "released" to the other side of the screen. Here the only message "released" was that the auction had ended, and the only way this could happen is by North completing the auction with a pass.


East was party to the infraction by not insisting that the tray should be pushed all the way through the screen according to regulation, so yes, I would not let him gain from a doubled contract.
However, I might take this alleged gain for the North/South side into consideration when assessing a PP on North..

Released just means that they have removed their hand. The bid was made.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-11, 04:20, said:

But although the double was placed on the tray it was never "released"!

I wouldn't have expected you to have trouble with this word - I usually think your knowledge of the English language is outstanding.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2017-July-11, 05:33, said:

I wouldn't have expected you to have trouble with this word - I usually think your knowledge of the English language is outstanding.

I don't
To me "released" here means released for the rest of the table (i.e. to the other side of the screen) to see.

There would not have been any problem if the regulation had been followed to the letter.

Consider a similar situation where regulation is indeedd adhered to:
North places 1♠ on the tray and East points out that this bid is insufficient, he must now call the Director.

According to reegulation the bid may not be accepted by East, North must replace it with a legal call and there is (normally) no further rectifications.

Is the insufficient bid considered having been made? No, not legally, it is simply ignored.

Back to our situation: Does it make any sense at all to consider the double made when neither South nor West had any reason to be aware of it?

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-11, 06:23, said:

To me "released" here means released for the rest of the table (i.e. to the other side of the screen) to see.

It means exactly what you want it to mean, never mind what it says!

So you would allow a change of call after it has been released onto the tray, before the tray has been passed through the screen, even though this was precisely what the current wording was created to prevent?

[pran]

gordontd, on 2017-July-11, 06:30, said:

It means exactly what you want it to mean, never mind what it says!

So you would allow a change of call after it has been released onto the tray, before the tray has been passed through the screen, even though this was precisely what the current wording was created to prevent?

Yes if:
- it illegal in any way
- it was unintended and the opponent (on the same side of the screen) accepts the assertion that it was.

BTW, one of the synonyms for "release" is "publish", I think that says it all.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-11, 07:28, said:

Yes if:
- it illegal in any way
- it was unintended and the opponent (on the same side of the screen) accepts the assertion that it was.

BTW, one of the synonyms for "release" is "publish", I think that says it all.

This is inconsistent of you. If the call hasn't been made, as you assert, it should be able to be changed for any reason.

Another definition of "release", and one that fits these circumstances more easily, is "to free (something) from (one's grip); let go or fall".

[blackshoe]

I disagree with Sven, agree with Gordon and others.

[Zelandakh]

gordontd, on 2017-July-11, 07:50, said:

Another definition of "release", and one that fits these circumstances more easily, is "to free (something) from (one's grip); let go or fall".

As further evidence of this, I can provide the German translation of the regulation:

Quote

Eine Ansage gilt als abgegeben, sobald die Bietkarte auf den Schlitten gelegt und losgelassen wurde.

This is even more clear than the (nonetheless extremely obvious to a native speaker) text from the EBL regulation. Could it really be the case that the Norwegian translation differs so greatly?

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on 2017-July-11, 09:03, said:

I disagree with Sven, agree with Gordon and others.

Well, I think I disagree with him about the interpretation of "release", too, but I like his ruling! Maybe I can't find a law to justify it, but it seems to me that North should not be entitled to profit from a bid that he prevented two of the players at the from being aware of!

[blackshoe]

Maybe not, but of course we can't rule on that basis - we have to find a legal basis.

[gordontd]

WellSpyder, on 2017-July-11, 09:09, said:

Well, I think I disagree with him about the interpretation of "release", too, but I like his ruling! Maybe I can't find a law to justify it, but it seems to me that North should not be entitled to profit from a bid that he prevented two of the players at the from being aware of!

I don't think others have said he should profit from it.

[barmar]

It's clear to me that the interpretation of "release" should be as Gordon said. The step where this word is used is when the player is placing their bidding card on the tray, far removed from the step of pushing the tray through the screen. The intent is presumably to distinguish non-screen bidding box regulations, where a bid is made when it has been removed from the box with intent (as in EBU) or held on or near the table (as in ACBL); with screens, you're permitted to change your call until you place it in the tray and let go of it (since partner can't see the card you removed from the box, there's no UI problem).

If they wanted to allow changing the call any time before the tray is pushed through, there are far clearer ways to say it -- "released" seems like a very strange word to use for that, if it's not used anywhere else to describe the process.

[pran]

Let me cut through the rubbish and see what the legal position really is if we admit that the double call stands:

Law 22A states: (The auction ends when)
 one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in rotation subsequent to the last bid. The last bid becomes the contract (but see Law 19D).
(Law 19D is irrelevant here)

So the auction has not ended, no contract has been established, and the four players have just exposed all their cards during the auction period. Law 24 applies.

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2017-July-11, 22:59, said:

So the auction has not ended, no contract has been established, and the four players have just exposed all their cards during the auction period. Law 24 applies.

...which is presumably why Gordon wrote:

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

I wonder about Law 12A2?

a
back in post #6. That still seems like the most informed post in the thread.

[pran]

All players believed the auction was ended.
The only way this could be the case is if the "double" is void.

Law 12A2 says: The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will  permit normal play of the board (see C2 below). 

However, as the procedure in connection with the double was illegal the Director has the power to rule that the double is void. Such rectification permits normal play of the board, in fact the play actually done.

So I question the applicability of Law 12C2 in this case and stand by my previous ruling that the board shall be scored as played in the contract 1NT undoubled.