Slow play with screens, 25.4.e-g

[szgyula]

Screens are in use. A player takes a very long time to bid (2+ minutes). The complication is that it was his screen mate that called the TD (after the end of auction but before opening lead). The question: Did they automatically exclude any possible TD rectification (for UI) by calling the TD on the "wrong side of the screen"? One camp interpret the Condition of contest 25.4.e-g as an explicit exclusion, the other camp says that in this case the TD must examine very carefully if the delay was noticed on the other side of the screen, but there is no automatic exclusion only a higher barrier to establish UI. Who is right? Why?

[blackshoe]

Whose conditions of contest? WBF? Somebody else?

[szgyula]

Whose conditions of contest? WBF? Somebody else?

WBF General Conditions of Contest, 2011, no additional local rules (related to screens or slow play).

[blackshoe]

"Shall not" is a very strong prohibition. IMO, that means not only that doing so is an infraction, it's one which should almost certainly draw a procedural penalty. That notwithstanding, the Director is required to rule on any irregularity of which he becomes aware, by any means (Law 81C3), so he still has to rule on the UI question. Also, I don't think the regulation places a "higher barrier" for determining UI, although clearly the TD will have to take into account that no one on the other side of the screen called him (CoC 25f and g) and so may well rule there was no UI. OTOH, two minutes is a pretty long time.

 

All that said, it's just my opinion, and I'm not a WBF TD.

[szgyula]

"Shall not" is a very strong prohibition. IMO, that means not only that doing so is an infraction, it's one which should almost certainly draw a procedural penalty. That notwithstanding, the Director is required to rule on any irregularity of which he becomes aware, by any means (Law 81C3), so he still has to rule on the UI question. Also, I don't think the regulation places a "higher barrier" for determining UI, although clearly the TD will have to take into account that no one on the other side of the screen called him (CoC 25f and g) and so may well rule there was no UI. OTOH, two minutes is a pretty long time.

 

All that said, it's just my opinion, and I'm not a WBF TD.

Thanks, that is quite clear. On the first issue some more clarification: The 25.4.e says that the screenmate "shall not" draw attention. Does this apply only to the auction period (where calling the TD is UI in this case)? As mentioned in the original post, the player waited until the end of the auction and (they ended up as declarer) THEN called the TD. Thus, there was not UI in the TD call itself (in this case).

[gnasher]

It's quite clear that there is no automatic exclusion:

Failure to do as (f) provides may persuade the Director it was the partner who drew attention to the break in tempo. If so he may well rule there was no perceived delay and thus no unauthorised information.

 

In this case the Director will certainly be persuaded that it was the partner who drew attention to the break in tempo, so the second sentence applies. "May well" doesn't mean "will".

 

The obvious thing for the director to do is to ask the people on the other side of the screen if they noticed a delay. If all four players agree that there was a tempo break, of course the director should rule on the basis that there was one.