Screen Scrape

[lamford]

The hand does not matter, but a rare situation arose with screens this weekend. South opened 1♣, Precision, and West, intending to overcall 1♦ to show spades, bid 1♣. Both players had a senior moment, and the tray was pushed through. On the other side, the 1♣ "overcall" was visible, but the 1♣ opening bid was not as the screen had not been pushed through quite far enough. The two players on the other side of the screen assumed it must have gone Pass-1♣, of course. The auction now continued Pass-1NT and the tray came back and the TD was called when the players realised that the auction was not entirely normal. So, the TD has an auction of 1♣*-1♣*-Pass-1NT to cope with. How do you rule and what is AI and what is UI now? [The screen regulations 5.1.3a state that an inadmissible call must be corrected.]

[gordontd]

[The screen regulations 5.1.3a state that an inadmissible call must be corrected.]

The insufficient 1C is not an inadmissible call. Who passed the tray through the first time?

[pran]

The hand does not matter, but a rare situation arose with screens this weekend. South opened 1♣, Precision, and West, intending to overcall 1♦ to show spades, bid 1♣. Both players had a senior moment, and the tray was pushed through. On the other side, the 1♣ "overcall" was visible, but the 1♣ opening bid was not as the screen had not been pushed through far enough. The two players on the other side of the screen assumed it must have gone Pass-1♣, of course. The auction now continued Pass-1NT and the tray came back and the TD was called when the players realised that the auction was not entirely normal. So, the TD has an auction of 1♣*-1♣*-Pass-1NT to cope with. How do you rule and what is AI and what is UI now? [The screen regulations 5.1.3a state that an inadmissible call must be corrected.]

(My Enhancement)

assumed???

How could they assume anything so long as they couldn't see the actual call by South (or notice the "alternative" fact that South had not called)?

 

IMHO the ruling must be that the auction so far had gone: 1♣ - 1♣ (accepted) - PASS - 1NT

 

Any irregularity from this first round of the auction must be resolved with North and East both at fault.

[sanst]

As Gordon wrote, inadmissable is not the same as insufficient.

The mess is due to all four players. Pushing the tray half through and bidding without seeing all the bids is a recipe for disaster. But the IB has been accepted and that there is a IB is AI for all concerned. That W mispulled, making it an unintended call, and would have bid 1♦ is UI for E and AI for NS because E has already put a call on the table. But the fact that both N and E have bid without noticing the 1♣ from S, is UI to their partners. The bidding continues from 1NT and the director should watch the auction and the play, making sure that nobody uses the UI. That might be a daunting task.

[pran]

As Gordon wrote, inadmissable is not the same as insufficient.

The mess is due to all four players. Pushing the tray half through and bidding without seeing all the bids is a recipe for disaster. But the IB has been accepted and that there is a IB is AI for all concerned. That W mispulled, making it an unintended call, and would have bid 1♦ is UI for E and AI for NS because E has already put a call on the table. But the fact that both N and E have bid without noticing the 1♣ from S, is UI to their partners. The bidding continues from 1NT and the director should watch the auction and the play, making sure that nobody uses the UI. That might be a daunting task.

How can that be?

 

South and West have no (legal) reason to know that their first calls were not completely noticed by the other side. If they were so informed by the Director then we have a Director's error and the consequences of this must be judged upon after the play has ended. And if instead they were somehow informed by either or both players on the other side then they have received UI.

 

South and West have every reason to believe that North and East were all the time fully aware of all calls made.

[lamford]

The insufficient 1C is not an inadmissible call. Who passed the tray through the first time?

I think South, the dealer, and he did not notice 1C was insufficient perhaps partially because it was being alerted by pointing to it, maybe partially covered by the hand alerting and partially as he had missed his last Specsavers appointment. It was pushed through almost far enough but the "draught excluder" covered up the opening bid.

[lamford]

South and West have no (legal) reason to know that their first calls were not completely noticed by the other side.

Surely the fact that the tray came back without a TD call having occurred makes it obvious what has happened.

[gordontd]

Surely the fact that the tray came back without a TD call having occurred makes it obvious what has happened.

Unless any comments were made that could be heard on the other side of the screen, I think I would just expect them to continue the auction and make of it what they can for themselves. Certainly, South's passing the tray through has accepted West's insufficient bid.

[barmar]

Surely the fact that the tray came back without a TD call having occurred makes it obvious what has happened.

I recall a thread a few months ago where the players on the other side of the screen were not aware that a director call had occurred. IIRC, it was about an actual tournament, not a hypothetical. I questioned how this could be possible, but I was assured that it was.

[sanst]

How can that be?

 

South and West have no (legal) reason to know that their first calls were not completely noticed by the other side. If they were so informed by the Director then we have a Director's error and the consequences of this must be judged upon after the play has ended. And if instead they were somehow informed by either or both players on the other side then they have received UI.

 

South and West have every reason to believe that North and East were all the time fully aware of all calls made.

The director was called, which makes clear to everyone that there's a irregularity. The laws are not clear in this, but my gut feeling is that all the players at the table have the right to know what the irregularity perains. The repeated "draw attention to an irregularity" makes that clear to me. That makes it AI to all what the irregularities were. But the information that these carry with them is UI to the partners. Besides, though the screen blocks the view, it doesn't block the sound, so everyone can hear what's said. it's nonsense to say that's a director's error if S and E can hear what is said by the TD.

[pran]

I recall a thread a few months ago where the players on the other side of the screen were not aware that a director call had occurred. IIRC, it was about an actual tournament, not a hypothetical. I questioned how this could be possible, but I was assured that it was.

I have little experience directing with screens, but I believe that a call for Director and the corresponding process can very well take place on one side of the screen with the players on the other side being completely unaware of what is going on?

[Vampyr]

Maybe seniors should not be forced to deal with modern technology like bidding boxes and screens.

[barmar]

Do the screen regulations have any other provisions regarding bids not being visible if the tray isn't pushed through completely?

[sanst]

I have little experience directing with screens, but I believe that a call for Director and the corresponding process can very well take place on one side of the screen with the players on the other side being completely unaware of what is going on?

When I trained for director, I was constantly told to:

- establish the facts, ALL the relevant facts,

- make, if possible, sure that all players agree on these facts.

Your idea that you can direct half a table is not only in contradiction with these instructions, but sounds ridiculous to me.

[barmar]

When I trained for director, I was constantly told to:

- establish the facts, ALL the relevant facts,

- make, if possible, sure that all players agree on these facts.

Your idea that you can direct half a table is not only in contradiction with these instructions, but sounds ridiculous to me.

The idea of screens is that the other side should be totally unaware of what takes place on the other side. Is it really necessary to get agreement from the other side about something they were supposedly oblivious of?

[mycroft]

various violations all leading to "The auction is 1♣!-1♣-p-1NT. All information you can work out from the table action is authorized to you. Good luck, folks! Oh, and be careful next time, won't you?"

 

Yes, from experience it is possible to have a TD call without it being known on the other side of the screen. Not always, of course, but there does tend to be a higher TD-to-table count than normal in screen events, and you can frequently just flag one without saying anything, given the sightlines and wandering directors.

 

The pause of the bidding on one side of the screen is obvious (especially in this auction, had it happened), but that's another "figuring out why is one of those counterproductive things" situation.

[lamford]

The idea of screens is that the other side should be totally unaware of what takes place on the other side. Is it really necessary to get agreement from the other side about something they were supposedly oblivious of?

Yes, you have to tell both sides what is UI and what is AI. The auction continues after 1C*-1C*-Pass-1NT. I think that the Precision bidder should alert the Pass and say something like "0-4" if you had bid 1D*, but no agreement over 1C*. The second 1C* bidder should say "no agreement" about 1NT as we are not allowed to have an agreement after an infraction by our side. The passer should tell the director that he should have alerted the original 1C* bid which was Precision, but he didn't see it. I think the 1NT call can then be corrected (Law 21; call based on misinformation which still appears to apply) and I cannot see that the fact that it has gone through the screen prevents this, but I may be wrong on this (help, please, gordontd!). Let us say the auction continues 1C*-1C*-Pass-1NT-X-2S. Now the full auction is AI to both sides, I think, as the auction always is. The insufficient bid of the second 1C* is now AI because the call was accepted (27A1). I don't think there is any further problem with the auction!

[sanst]

I've done what I should have done in the first place, look up the EBU screen regulation, to be found on pages 82-84 of the White Book. BTW, that one is the same as the WBFLC's and, not that it matters here, the Dutch.

5.1.3.

Modification of Rectifications when screens are in use

(a) An irregularity passed through the screen is subject to the normal laws, with the following provisions:

(i) an inadmissible call – see Law 35 – must be corrected

(ii) 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.

(b) Before an irregularity is passed through the screen the offender or his screenmate shall draw the Director's attention to it. Infringing calls shall not be accepted and shall be put right without other rectification (but see (a)(ii) above); any other irregularity shall be rectified and the Director ensures that only the legal auction is passed through the screen.

No player on the other side of the screen shall be informed of the occurrence unless the application of a law requires it.

N and S should pass the tray to the other side. By doing so, the bid of E or W is accepted. In this case S passed the tray and thereby accepted the insufficient 1♣ bid of W on behalf of N.

What happened here is in complete violation of the rules. The tray wasn't passed properly, S didn't check W's bid and therefore didn't notice that it was insufficient, N and E put their bids on the tray seeing only W's 1♣. Anyway, the TD, who was called only now, should treat the situation according to the 'normal' law. If possible, the TD should handle a 'situation' in silence on the side of the screen where it occured, but now that's impossible.

Maybe there should be a pillory (like this one, which actually is a stock, or is it stocks?) in the room just to frighten all players enough to stop them creating a mess like this.

[blackshoe]

Hm. That "infringing calls shall not be accepted" bit bothers me. If N makes an IB, under Law 27A, East may accept it. This part of the regulation conflicts with the Law. I don't think that's legal.

[sanst]

Hm. That "infringing calls shall not be accepted" bit bothers me. If N makes an IB, under Law 27A, East may accept it. This part of the regulation conflicts with the Law. I don't think that's legal.

I See your point, but this a WBFLC regulation, which makes it legal by definition.

If you're right, all bridge programs I know of are in violation with the laws. You can't make IB's, BOOT's, LOOT's and what more have you. You can't even revoke.

[barmar]

Hm. That "infringing calls shall not be accepted" bit bothers me. If N makes an IB, under Law 27A, East may accept it. This part of the regulation conflicts with the Law. I don't think that's legal.

The reason for that law is because it's not possible to unring a bell that has been heard by partner. But screens solve that problem inherently, and the need for accepting IBs that haven't been pushed through is gone. This regulation allows us to get a normal bridge result, without the need to tell partner to ignore UI, or worry about whether they managed to achieve a result they couldn't have gotten without the irregularity.

 

It's not much different from the way electronic bridge totally prevents these types of irregularities. They're considered "part of the game" only because the traditional playing technology makes them inevitable, not because we actually want to allow them.

[blackshoe]

Are sure it was the LC that promulgated the WBF's screen regs? I'm not.

 

If by "all bridge programs" you mean software used to play bridge they all (afaik) are in conflict with the laws. And there are a lot of people who think it's the laws that should be changed. That's ass-backward if you ask me.

[gordontd]

Are sure it was the LC that promulgated the WBF's screen regs? I'm not.

There's quite a degree of overlap between the LC and the Rules & Regulations committee. I doubt they would have felt able to make the screen regulations if they thought the LC wouldn't be happy about it.

[RSliwinski]

Hm. That "infringing calls shall not be accepted" bit bothers me. If N makes an IB, under Law 27A, East may accept it. This part of the regulation conflicts with the Law. I don't think that's legal.

Well, I think that the law 80B2(e) gives the legality to the screen regulations. For those who are to lazy to look it up, it states that The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include: to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions (as, for example, play with screens – provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied).

[axman]

Well, I think that the law 80B2(e) gives the legality to the screen regulations. For those who are to lazy to look it up, it states that The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include: to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions (as, for example, play with screens – provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied).

 

Merely because the power exists does not prevent it from being wielded unwisely. 80B2e perhaps would be clearer if truncated to The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include: to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions. .

 

What makes the particular screen regs 'legal' in spite of creating possible 80B2f conflicts with law is , together with any special conditions .