Insufficient bid with screens

[barmar]

I was operating the Vugraph for the Wagar semi-finals today. This event is played with screens; as usual, South and West are screenmates, as are North and East. At one point the following happened:

 

South made an insufficient bid.

West didn't notice that it was insufficient, and doubled.

The tray was passed.

North passed.

North and East then noticed the insufficient bid. They were confused about what to do, and finally realized that they should call the director (you'd think players of this calibre would know this immediately, but apparently not).

 

After getting the facts, the director left to check on the proper procedure. He said that when screens are in use, making a call after an IB doesn't automatically accept it, and the auction is rolled back. He had South make her bid sufficient (both the original bid and the replacement were natural, so there was none of that issue to worry about), West repeated her double, and the auction continued. He didn't give West the option of accepting the IB.

 

So is there really a regulation that overrides Law 27A when screens are in use? I wonder if it's only supposed to apply if the tray hasn't yet been passed, so IBer's partner is oblivious to the situation. That wasn't the case here, since the IB was noticed by the partner.

[pran]

There should be a regulation that among other things also specify alterations to some of the laws when screens are used.

 

The Director's ruling is correct in Norway.

 

(If both North and East had subsequently called and passed the tray back to South and West again without the Director being called then the auction should have stood as (incorrectly) made.)

[RMB1]

For what its worth, the EBU regulations are different: passing the tray accepts the insufficient bid.

 

if a player infringes the law and, [inadvertently (otherwise Law 23 may apply),] the irregularity is passed through the screen by his screenmate the latter has accepted the action on behalf of his side in situations where the laws permit LHO to accept it.

[gordontd]

For what its worth, the EBU regulations are different: passing the tray accepts the insufficient bid.

Yes, this EBU regulation comes directly from the WBF regulations.

[gnasher]

The relevant parts of the ACBL screen regulations are:

 

When the infringing call is nonetheless passed across the screen, both sides being at fault (as when either player commits a bidding infraction and the proper player - North or South - moves the tray before rectification), both players on the other side of the screen are responsible for calling attention to the infraction and summoning the director. The director shall return the tray to the offending players for rectification of the irregularity without penalty. These calls may not be accepted.

...

When the infringing call is passed across the screen, and neither player there draws attention to it, the tray eventually being returned to the side of the screen where the bidding irregularity was committed, the auction stands without penalty or rectification.

 

So the ruling was correct.

[paulg]

For what its worth, the EBU regulations are different: passing the tray accepts the insufficient bid.

Yes, this EBU regulation comes directly from the WBF regulations.

In this instance, from an EBU and WBF perspective, I believe West accepted South's insufficient bid prior to the tray being passed. This regulation is applicable when West makes the insufficient bid and then South is deemed to have accepted the IB on North's behalf.

 

The ACBL regulations seem subject to interpretation in this instance. Law 27 states that an insufficient bid may be accepted (and treated as legal) and, when South makes an IB and West accepts it, you could argue that there is no infraction that needs to be rectified. The ACBL regulations are clearly different when West makes an IB.

 

But I will say that the directors at the NABCs are excellent and I'm sure they enforce the regulations consistently in this regard.

 

And I share barmar's despair at the competence of players in this area of the law. At the Europeans I had to put a redouble into the bridgemate when there was no double to be seen on the tray and no-one called the director at any point (to be fair, the redouble was correctly described on both sides of the screen).

[Zelandakh]

At the Europeans I had to put a redouble into the bridgemate when there was no double to be seen on the tray and no-one called the director at any point (to be fair, the redouble was correctly described on both sides of the screen).

They had agreements for what a redouble means when there has been no double?!?

[paulg]

They had agreements for what a redouble means when there has been no double?!?

The auction was something like 1♦-(Pass)-1♥-(1♠)-XX, described as a support redouble on both sides. On one side the fact that it was actually the redouble card was not explicitly noticed, so the caller just described what she intended. On the other side the lack of double was noticed, but an educated guess was made.

[pran]

The relevant parts of the ACBL screen regulations are:

[...}

So the ruling was correct.

I have not looked up WBFLC regulations, but I believe most if not all our Norwegian regulations are translated from the WBFLC version.

 

So I am a bit surprised noticing that our relevant regulation apparently is identical to the ACBL version rather than the WBFLC version if there really is a discrepancy between these versions.

[gnasher]

I have not looked up WBFLC regulations, but I believe most if not all our Norwegian regulations are translated from the WBFLC version.

 

So I am a bit surprised noticing that our relevant regulation apparently is identical to the ACBL version rather than the WBFLC version if there really is a discrepancy between these versions.

If you doubt Gordon's assertion, why don't you look up the relevant WBF regulations?

 

Gordon is, of course, right.

[bixby]

The relevant parts of the ACBL screen regulations are:

 

So the ruling was correct.

 

Yes, the ruling followed the ACBL screen regulations. But here's a picky question:

 

Law 27A1 provides that an insufficient bid is accepted if the offender's LHO calls. Law 80B2E, however, provides that the Tournament Organizer may establish "special conditions," and then parenthetically adds "(as, for example, play with screens – provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied)."

 

So I see where the ACBL gets the authority to say that a call by West does not accept an insufficient bid by South if the problem is noticed before the tray is passed to the other side of the screen. But given that Law 80B2E says that "provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied," doesn't that at least imply that the Tournament Organizer lacks authority to vary the rectification for actions that are transmitted across the screen? Where does the Tournament Organizer get the authority to say that Law 27A1 does not apply in the case of an insufficient bid that has been transmitted to the other side of the screen?

[blackshoe]

Perhaps it's an application of the 500 pound canary rule. B-)

[Zelandakh]

This ACBL version seems to read that when West "accepts" the IB, South has the option of transmitting the UI to the other side of the screen, or not. Since both sides will be at fault, it may actually be beneficial for South to choose to pass the tray even if they have now noticed the IB. Am I misreading this somehow?

[barmar]

But given that Law 80B2E says that "provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied," doesn't that at least imply that the Tournament Organizer lacks authority to vary the rectification for actions that are transmitted across the screen?

The part about "not transmitted across the screen" is in an example, not an exclusive list. On the other hand, the lack of guidelines for the special conditions essentially gives the TO carte blanche, practically rendering the entire law book moot.

 

For instance, all those "no psyches" tournaments are apparently legal, if you consider this an 80B2e special condition.

[pran]

If you doubt Gordon's assertion, why don't you look up the relevant WBF regulations?

 

Gordon is, of course, right.

So I looked up the WBFLC regulation.

 

Now try to apply regulation 25.4 A ii) on each of the following scenarios and see if you feel less confused than how I do feel:

 

South makes an IB, West calls and South moves the tray to the other side of the screen

South makes an IB, West calls and West moves the tray to the other side of the screen

West makes an IB and South moves the tray to the other side of the screen

West makes an IB and West moves the tray to the other side of the screen

 

(Be aware that the regulation uses the clause "is passed through the screen by his screenmate".)

 

For once I have more sympathy for ACBL than for WBFLC.

[gnasher]

South makes an IB, West calls and South moves the tray to the other side of the screen

West has accepted the insufficient bid.

 

South makes an IB, West calls and West moves the tray to the other side of the screen

West has accepted the insufficient bid (as well as incurring a large PP and possibly a Law-23 adjustment).

 

West makes an IB and South moves the tray to the other side of the screen

South has accepted the insufficient bid on behalf of NS.

 

West makes an IB and West moves the tray to the other side of the screen

North can accept or reject the insufficient bid.

[gnasher]

This appears in the WBF (and EBU) screen regulations:

 

"if a player infringes the law and, inadvertently (otherwise Law 23 may apply), the irregularity is passed through the screen by his screenmate the latter has accepted the action on behalf of his side in situations where the laws permit LHO to accept it"

 

The part between the commas is nonsense, isn't it?

 

Law 23 applies regardless of whether the irregularity was inadvertent or not. We don't have to consider intent: if you pass an irregularity through the screen and you gain from doing so, we adjust the score.

 

And the wording implies that if you pass the irregularity through intentionally, Law 23 means that the irregularity hasn't been accepted. Eh?

Edited July 20, 2012 by gnasher

[Zelandakh]

This appears in the WBF (and EBU) screen regulations:

 

"if a player infringes the law and, inadvertently (otherwise Law 23 may apply), the irregularity is passed through the screen by his screenmate the latter has accepted the action on behalf of his side in situations where the laws permit LHO to accept it"

 

The part in brackets is nonsense, isn't it? Law 23 applies regardless of whether it was inadvertent or not.

Law 23 applies if a player is aware that an irregularity might damage the other side but does it anyway. If you do something inadvertently then you cannot be aware. This part seems to refer to the irregularity of passing the issue through the screen rather than the original irregularity. In other words, if West makes an IB and South passes the tray without noticing it then Law 23 does not apply against N-S, but if South passes the tray after noticing the IB in order to create UI problems on the N-E side of the acreen then Law 23 does apply against N-S. It is a little strange that the NOS for Law 23 in this case seems to be the original OS, but this is how the regulation reads to me.

[gnasher]

Law 23 applies if a player is aware that an irregularity might damage the other side but does it anyway. If you do something inadvertently then you cannot be aware.

 

I think you should reread Law 23.

[Zelandakh]

Law 23

AWARENESS OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*.

 

If a player does not notice the IB (or whatever the irregularity is) how could they be aware that passing the tray could well damage the other side?

[gnasher]

"Could have been" does not mean the same as "was". The law is phrased in a way that means that the director doesn't have to consider actual intent or actual knowledge.

[Zelandakh]

The Pednatic thread is in Simple Rulings, Andy. it is clear that this is all in the opinion of the TD. Obviously if you are unaware but the Director decides you are then Law 23 applies. It does not apply for the given clause if the passing of the infraction was inadvertent (in the opinion of the Director). Is this not what we were talking about? I am not sure what nitpicking about what is the truth and what the TD thinks is the truth has to do with your original question on whether Law 23 applies regardless of inadvertency.

[gnasher]

The Pednatic thread is in Simple Rulings, Andy. it is clear that this is all in the opinion of the TD. Obviously if you are unaware but the Director decides you are then Law 23 applies. It does not apply for the given clause if the passing of the infraction was inadvertent (in the opinion of the Director). Is this not what we were talking about? I am not sure what nitpicking about what is the truth and what the TD thinks is the truth has to do with your original question on whether Law 23 applies regardless of inadvertency.

I'm not being pedantic, I'm not nitpicking, and I have said nothing about either "the truth" or "what the TD thinks is the truth", except to say that both are irrelevant. I'm treating Law 23 both as it is written and as it is interpreted by every competent director anywhere in the world.

 

If you pass an insufficient bid through the screen, that is an irregularity. It's an irregularity regardless of whether you knew that it was an irregularity. Law 23 has three conditions: you commit an irregularity, you benefit from the irregularity, and you could have known that you would benefit in this way. All of these conditions are met by the act of passing the insufficient bid through the screen.

[Vampyr]

The Pednatic thread is in Simple Rulings, Andy. it is clear that this is all in the opinion of the TD. Obviously if you are unaware but the Director decides you are then Law 23 applies. It does not apply for the given clause if the passing of the infraction was inadvertent (in the opinion of the Director). Is this not what we were talking about? I am not sure what nitpicking about what is the truth and what the TD thinks is the truth has to do with your original question on whether Law 23 applies regardless of inadvertency.

 

It was suggested that you reread Law 23. It is clear that you have not done so.