[vigfus]

Nordic Team championship 2013 Screens are in use

South is declarer and opens 2 clubs. West Pass and the tray is moved to the N/E side.
When it arrives to the N/E side, the bidding is... West has Passed. and North is next to bid.

The fact is that South did not put his 2 club bid into the bidding tray. He had placed his 2 clubs bid on the table.

North makes an opening bid of 1 spade and East Pass. The tray is moved to the S/W side.
Now South wakes up, and informs all the players at the table that he had opened 2 clubs.

TD !!!!

[barmar]

Does the RA say anything about this in their regulations for bidding with screens?

[blackshoe]

Who passed the tray, S or W?

[gnasher]

According to the CoC, the EBL screen regulations apply. Some relevant extracts:

a call is considered 'made' when placed on the tray and released

After two players on the same side of the screen have made their calls, North or South (as the case may be) slides the bidding tray under the centre of the screen

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

That makes the ruling quite straightforward:
- South's 2♣ opening didn't occur, and West's pass was out of turn.
- If South pushed the tray through the screen, he accepted the pass out of turn.
- If West pushed the tray through the screen, the pass out of turn hadn't been accepted at that point, but North accepted it by bidding 1♠. West should receive a PP.
- South's announcement that he'd opened 2♣ is UI to North, AI to the opponents, and also worthy of a PP.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2013-May-26, 01:38, said:

According to the CoC, the EBL screen regulations apply. Some relevant extracts:

a call is considered 'made' when placed on the tray and released

After two players on the same side of the screen have made their calls, North or South (as the case may be) slides the bidding tray under the centre of the screen

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

That makes the ruling quite straightforward:
- South's 2♣ opening didn't occur, and West's pass was out of turn.
- If South pushed the tray through the screen, he accepted the pass out of turn.
- If West pushed the tray through the screen, the pass out of turn hadn't been accepted at that point, but North accepted it by bidding 1♠. West should receive a PP.
- South's announcement that he'd opened 2♣ is UI to North, AI to the opponents, and also worthy of a PP.

EBL screen regulations said:

[...]
After two players on the same side of the screen have made their calls,
North or South (as the case may be) slides the bidding tray under the
centre of the screen so as to be visible only to the players on the other
side.
[...]

So West had no business pushing the tray.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2013-May-26, 04:55, said:

So West had no business pushing the tray.

Yes. That's why I (a) quoted the same regulation as you quoted, and (b) said that if West had pushed the tray, he should receive a PP.

[barmar]

This reminds me of the thread a while ago where a player had left a bidding card out from the previous auction (maybe it was a pass-out and the next board's dealer forgot to put his pass card back in the box), so during the next auction the player after him bid out of turn because he thought that card was a new bid. The similarity is that in both cases, it appeared as if the player had bid; in this new thread, the bidding cards were placed near to the tray, but not actually in it, but neither player noticed the error until the tray returned from the other side. And in both cases, it seems extreme to penalize the player in 2nd chair, when it was actually the 1st chair player who made the more serious error.

Law 47E1 allows retracting a lead or play out of turn if it was due to an opponent mistakenly telling him that it was his turn. It's interesting that there's no analogous law for calls out of turn during the auction, as we might construe it applying to these cases. Although 47E2b says that if the error is discovered when it's too late to correct, an adjusted score may be awarded; in the case of a similar error during the auction, it seems like the best we could do is an artificial adjusted score.

[pran]

barmar, on 2013-May-26, 14:27, said:

This reminds me of the thread a while ago where a player had left a bidding card out from the previous auction (maybe it was a pass-out and the next board's dealer forgot to put his pass card back in the box), so during the next auction the player after him bid out of turn because he thought that card was a new bid. The similarity is that in both cases, it appeared as if the player had bid; in this new thread, the bidding cards were placed near to the tray, but not actually in it, but neither player noticed the error until the tray returned from the other side. And in both cases, it seems extreme to penalize the player in 2nd chair, when it was actually the 1st chair player who made the more serious error.

Law 47E1 allows retracting a lead or play out of turn if it was due to an opponent mistakenly telling him that it was his turn. It's interesting that there's no analogous law for calls out of turn during the auction, as we might construe it applying to these cases. Although 47E2b says that if the error is discovered when it's too late to correct, an adjusted score may be awarded; in the case of a similar error during the auction, it seems like the best we could do is an artificial adjusted score.

Point well taken, and IMHO the only ruling legally available with a left-over bid card is to apply Law 25A provided the error is discovered before dealer's partner calls. Once the auction has progressed beyond that point the "left-over" call must stand as (apparently) made.

[blackshoe]

yeah, but the "leftover" call in this case is dealer's not-2♣. If he didn't make a call, then second seat passed out of turn. If dealer did make a call, his partner's response is insufficient. Seems like whatever the ruling is, somebody will be unhappy.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-26, 16:27, said:

yeah, but the "leftover" call in this case is dealer's not-2♣. If he didn't make a call, then second seat passed out of turn. If dealer did make a call, his partner's response is insufficient. Seems like whatever the ruling is, somebody will be unhappy.

Second seat (West) did indeed pass out of turn here, and provided it was South who (as prescribed in regulations) pushed the tray the pass out of turn was accepted.

The similarity with the other thread is that there a call that the player certainly did not intend was indeed made, here a call that the player certainly did intend was not made.

And of course, like in most cases of an irregularity somebody will be unhappy.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps I should have used a stronger phrase to convey what I meant. How about "will be screaming bloody murder"?

[mycroft]

I'm sure they will have an issue with this, but I can't see where gnasher is wrong.

South's call was not made, as it wasn't in the tray; West passed (out of turn), and that call was accepted by one of N/S (depending on whether the rest of the screen regulations were followed. I don't have pran's confidence that they were, having played with screens and impatient E/Ws more than once).

I don't like South's audible statement, but oh well. Just because there are screens doesn't mean there aren't UI rulings.

Auction is p-1♠-p to South. The fact that South wanted to bid 2♣ (and thought he had) is AI to E/W, UI to North. Have fun.

[pran]

mycroft, on 2013-May-27, 12:26, said:

I'm sure they will have an issue with this, but I can't see where gnasher is wrong.

South's call was not made, as it wasn't in the tray; West passed (out of turn), and that call was accepted by one of N/S (depending on whether the rest of the screen regulations were followed. I don't have pran's confidence that they were, having played with screens and impatient E/Ws more than once).

I don't like South's audible statement, but oh well. Just because there are screens doesn't mean there aren't UI rulings.

Auction is p-1♠-p to South. The fact that South wanted to bid 2♣ (and thought he had) is AI to E/W, UI to North. Have fun.

South is the only player on the SW side of the screen who can accept a call out of turn by West, and he does so by pushing the tray to the NE side.

If West pushed the tray then his (own) pass out of turn was not legally accepted but, as far as I know, the regulations are silent on how to rule in that case. The best ruling is probably to treat the Call out of turn by West as accepted and let the auction continue, but with a PP to West for violating screen regulations.

[barmar]

I think the one screaming bloody murder would be West, if his side were punished for him passing out of turn when it was South's mistake that he missed the tray when he placed his bidding cards.

I don't see the point of bringing up West pushing the tray unless we get some mention from the OP that this other infraction occurred. Let's stick to the facts as given, I think we can assume other procedures were followed properly (maybe that's too much of an assumption, this whole case smells like the SW players are not experienced at using screens).

[gnasher]

pran, on 2013-May-27, 17:37, said:

If West pushed the tray then his (own) pass out of turn was not legally accepted but, as far as I know, the regulations are silent on how to rule in that case.

I have already quoted the regulation that tells us how to rule in that case. Here it is again: "An irregularity passed through the screen is subject to the normal laws, with the following provisions..." None of the provisions is relevant, so the normal laws apply.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2013-May-27, 22:28, said:

I think the one screaming bloody murder would be West, if his side were punished for him passing out of turn when it was South's mistake that he missed the tray when he placed his bidding cards.

Who suggested that West should be punished for passing out of turn?

[mycroft]

No, we're going to treat West's call, legitimately according to the regulations, as a call out of turn. No punishment, just an infraction accepted. I do feel for West, but I don't really think it's going to be an issue in the auction, same as it's almost never an issue when an opening pass out of turn is accepted before anybody notices who's actually dealer.

We're going to punish West for breaching the screen regulations, IF West infracted by pushing the tray through. Unlike pran, I have known players to do things even though the regulations say they are not to; how frequently an individual type of infraction occurs depends strongly on how likely it is to cause a problem, and how likely/strongly it is to be penalized when it does cause a problem. In this particular case, I know for a fact that this regulation (N/S is solely responsible for moving the tray) is honoured more in the breach than in line of battle.

It doesn't matter very often (*usually* the issue is that South wanted to delay the tray passing, and West doesn't let her, and the "fast call" makes it through the screen, and even then it doesn't matter much), but when it does matter, we rule as if it matters, and if it causes a real problem, we issue a penalty.

If West did the right thing and let South push through, then of course we aren't going to do anything.

We are also likely to punish South for causing the issue; both for missing the tray and making the comment that transmitted through the screen. Part of the reason we are likely to issue a procedural penalty is that it's likely that this auction will either be easier after 1♠ opening opposite 22 than after 2♣ opposite 12, or at worst no more difficult.

[WellSpyder]

mycroft, on 2013-May-28, 11:01, said:

In this particular case, I know for a fact that this regulation (N/S is solely responsible for moving the tray) is honoured more in the breach than in line of battle.

That's curious - seems to be another example of how custom and practice differ on different sides of the Atlantic. I probably don't play more than a few hundred hands a year with screens, but I don't think I have ever seen E/W moving the tray in England.

[paulg]

WellSpyder, on 2013-May-29, 03:25, said:

That's curious - seems to be another example of how custom and practice differ on different sides of the Atlantic. I probably don't play more than a few hundred hands a year with screens, but I don't think I have ever seen E/W moving the tray in England.

I've seen it in England, but only once because they found that playing with just one hand was awkward.

[billw55]

It's a shame that south made his announcement. Otherwise, it seems that the screen served its purpose and the auction could have continued over 1♠ with no restrictions.