Law 22A not satisfied

[gordontd]

Was he too unqualified?

Speculation and supposition running rife in the last three posts here, leading to ludicrous conclusions.

Since the chief director of the event under discussion is a Head Tournament Director of both the EBL & WBF, I don't think we can conclude he was "too unqualified".

[pran]

Speculation and supposition running rife in the last three posts here, leading to ludicrous conclusions.

Since the chief director of the event under discussion is a Head Tournament Director of both the EBL & WBF, I don't think we can conclude he was "too unqualified".

What kind of event (level) was this really?

[gordontd]

What kind of event (level) was this really?

The European championships at Montecatini, as stated above.

[pran]

The European championships at Montecatini, as stated above.

And acts like that by the directors?

I am lost for words.

[nige1]

I was West and I was not very happy. There was a regulation in force saying that once a score had been entered and accepted in the Bridgemate, it could not be altered unless both sides agreed. This regulation was clearly not followed in this case. It took over 24 hours for the TD to rule on the case; eventually he referred the case to the Chief TD to ask him to decide. The Chief TD's ruling was that the double should stand. Unfortunately, the rationale for this ruling was not communicated. This whole episode left a sour taste in the mouth.

Speculation and supposition running rife in the last three posts here, leading to ludicrous conclusions. Since the chief director of the event under discussion is a Head Tournament Director of both the EBL & WBF, I don't think we can conclude he was "too unqualified".

GordonTD is right (as usual) that we shouldn't speculate on the CTD's precise motive for his bizarre decision. I withdraw my guess and apologise. Nevertheless, at European Championship level, the CTD's decision leaves a sour taste in jallerton's mouth and a rank smell in the air. It cries out for some official attempt at justification.

[Vampyr]

The chief-director might have been inhibited from dispensing justice by his reluctance to criticise the table-director for his illegal score-change.

 

Such daft travesties seem inevitable while players deliberately flout regulations and directors condone these infractions.

 

If basic regulations were incorporated into the laws, then, perhaps, we would all take more notice.

 

IMO rules should stipulate that bid-cards stay visible until dummy is exposed.

 

That's not too easy, since the tray is normally gone by the time the opening lead is made.

 

I must admit that I do find it a little frustrating when the other side pass out the bidding and remove their cards when I wanted to sE the whole auction.

[pran]

I have done some consultation and ended up at:

 

1: If there really exists a culture that pushing the tray only half way through is an established signal that the auction is ended then the relevant authority (e.g. WBF EBL) has some serious work to do:

Such culture is simply not acceptable and must be effectively counteracted wherever detected. The responsibility for this lies (for the described environment) on EBL.

 

2: Correct proedure is to push the tray all the way through, and if the receiving side does not see all the calls made at the time then the relevant player on that side is responsible for pulling the tray far enough.

 

3: No part of the auction shall be removed from the tray before all four players have had the opportunity to examine the entire auction.

 

These principles are enforced strictly at least here in Norway.

 

As for the allegation that screen regulations are often violated, particularly the rule about all questions and explanations be made in writing, - yes this happens here as well.

However whenever there is any dispute about what was asked or explained then only what has been written down is considered,

 

So in this discussion I am back to the original and fundamental question: Was pushing the tray only half way through the screen an accepted procedure?

 

If so then North and East have indeed informed South and West that the agreed contract was 1NT undoubled. - And EBL has a serious matter to clear up.