Law 22A not satisfied

[gordontd]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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:

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.

[gordontd]

However, as the procedure in connection with the double was illegal the Director has the power to rule that the double is void.

This really is nonsense and has been shown to be so throughout this thread, but you just never give way, do you?

[pran]

...which is presumably why Gordon wrote:

a

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

A result was obtained on (a correct version of) the board so Law 12C2 may not be used.

[gordontd]

A result was obtained on (a correct version of) the board so Law 12C2 may not be used.

What result? 1NT-2 or 1NTx-2?

 

I imagine you'll say the former, but you can't just pretend a call wasn't made when it was.

[axman]

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.

 

 

The principle of appearances suggests that after players return their bidding cards, and (to boot), play thirteen tricks that they all believed that the auction was complete. We know that at least one player of each side saw the double and east's subsequent pass. Thus, in order for the auction to be over ( as previously suggested) there needs to be two (more) passes in rotation so it is logical that S and W picking up their bidding cards is a euphemism for pass. Albeit, it is not unreasonable to believe that S and W acted on their own misunderstanding (L21) and have no recourse. This suggests (since reopening the auction is foreclosed) that the contract was 1NX, which does not preclude some sort of penalty for procedural irregularities.

[gordontd]

The principle of appearances suggests that after players return their bidding cards, and (to boot), play thirteen tricks that they all believed that the auction was complete.

Not only that, but the regulations tell us:

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”.

 

We know that at least one player of each side saw the double and east's subsequent pass. Thus, in order for the auction to be over ( as previously suggested) there needs to be two (more) passes in rotation so it is logical that S and W picking up their bidding cards is a euphemism for pass. Albeit, it is not unreasonable to believe that S and W acted on their own misunderstanding (L21) and have no recourse. This suggests (since reopening the auction is foreclosed) that the contract was 1NX, which does not preclude some sort of penalty for procedural irregularities.

The problem is that in picking up their bidding cards, neither South nor West was attempting to pass - they thought the auction was already over.

[blackshoe]

South and West acted on a misunderstanding created by North (because he didn't push the board completely through the screen). And euphemisms are not entertained by the rules of the game

 

I would rather award an artificial adjusted score of average minus to NS, average to EW, and a PP to NS for failure to comply with the screen regulations, than to award an assigned adjusted score on the basis that the double never happened and the hand was passed out. Note that I am not suggesting that the former is the correct ruling.

[pran]

The problem is that in picking up their bidding cards, neither South nor West was attempting to pass - they thought the auction was already over.

Precisely!

Edited July 12, 2017 by blackshoe
Fixed the quote tags

[pran]

What result? 1NT-2 or 1NTx-2?

 

I imagine you'll say the former, but you can't just pretend a call wasn't made when it was.

I do indeed say the former.

 

We don't know the agreements between North and South (or the actual hands), but if their agreement is that the double in this situatiion is for takeout then I find it likely that South might have bid something in response.

And if the double is for penalties then I find it equally likely that West might have bid something.

 

The fact that South and West were never informed about the double makes me extremely reluctant to consider 1NTx as the contract.

 

So my alternative to ruling 1NT-2 is to completely cancel the board and award artificial adjusted scores along the lines suggested by blackshoe above. (However, as alreay said I don't consider Law 12C2 applicable here.)

[gordontd]

So my alternative to ruling 1NT-2 is to completely cancel the board and award artificial adjusted scores along the lines suggested by blackshoe above. (However, as alreay said I don't consider Law 12C2 applicable here.)

Then on what basis would you do that?

[pran]

Then on what basis would you do that?

The fact that South and West were never informed about the double makes me extremely reluctant to consider 1NTx as the contract.

[Zelandakh]

The fact that South and West were never informed about the double makes me extremely reluctant to consider 1NTx as the contract.

Would you consider N-S getting the worse of Ave- and the table result in 1NTX and E-W getting the more favourable of Ave and the table result in 1NTX? Would such an arrangement even be legal for that matter?

[pran]

Would you consider N-S getting the worse of Ave- and the table result in 1NTX and E-W getting the more favourable of Ave and the table result in 1NTX? Would such an arrangement even be legal for that matter?

I cannot answer your first question without knowing the relevant agreements, the actual hands and the actual results at other tables.

 

Some variation of the arrangement is legal provided weighted adjusted scores are permissible (Law 12C1), but I should expect an appeal from a suffering side to be granted (on the ground that South and West were never during the auction informed about the double).

[Zelandakh]

I cannot answer your first question without knowing the relevant agreements, the actual hands and the actual results at other tables.

I would agree with you absolutely about the hands and agreements - if S or W has a clear removal for example (I was assuming not for the purposes of the previous post) - but I am not so sure about the results at other tables being relevant. Is it not standard TD procedure to ignore as much as possible specific events at other tables when making a ruling?

[gordontd]

The fact that South and West were never informed about the double makes me extremely reluctant to consider 1NTx as the contract.

You want to cancel the board but you don't want to use L12. You need to use some law to do this. Your reluctance is not enough.

[axman]

The principle of appearances suggests that after players return their bidding cards, and (to boot), play thirteen tricks that they all believed that the auction was complete. We know that at least one player of each side saw the double and east's subsequent pass. Thus, in order for the auction to be over ( as previously suggested) there needs to be two (more) passes in rotation so it is logical that S and W picking up their bidding cards is a euphemism for pass. Albeit, it is not unreasonable to believe that S and W acted on their own misunderstanding (L21) and have no recourse. This suggests (since reopening the auction is foreclosed) that the contract was 1NX, which does not preclude some sort of penalty for procedural irregularities.

South and west had a responsibility to themselves to actually see the bidding cards. Thus, their failure to pull the tray completely was what created their misunderstanding. That they proceeded to play tricks in that state ought not relieve them of the consequences. The contract was doubled and ought to be scored as such. The benefit of doing so is that these players will be careful forever; and so will the hundreds of players that hear the story.