[pran]

jallerton, on 2013-August-26, 17:23, said:

This is not quite what happened.

East led a card face down. West said "It's not your lead, you're dummy". North/South said: "No we're playing 2♦". Now South put her hand down as dummy. At some point East now turned his card face up. This is all agreed.

According to E/W, East did not face his "opening lead" until after South had put her hand down.

According to East, the reason why he thought his partner had passed is that he saw him write something down on his scorecard.

According to West, he tapped the table after his partner had led face down because this was an irregularity and he did not want East to expose this card prematurely before the opening lead he was expecting from North.

So much for having been given a precise description by OP "on the bits that matter".
This description undeniably changes the story on important details, and it looks more credible.

Ruling: West called attention to an irregularity, North/South objected, but instead of waiting for the Director South put her hand down. Start with Laws 9B and 11A.

[aguahombre]

Before totally agreeing with Sven, I have just one little question: Was Jallerton North, South, East, or West --- or a kibitzer? Or do we still not know what really happened? Or was Bluejack not the one called to the table?

O.K. maybe not just one little question.

[FrancesHinden]

While Jallerton's account is not quite the same as Bluejak's, I don't see how it changes the ruling.
West failed to notice a 2D overcall, so he is not entirely innocent, however that's not particularly relevant.

West tried to prevent an irregularity. Not only S but also E clearly failed to understand/register what West said so both pairs are at fault.

I would still rule under 24C as the earlier replies have said. The contract is 2D. Under other scenarios where 24C could apply, South might also end up with 13 penalty cards, but not here.

Next question: does the fact that West hadn't seen the 2D bid, and thus perhaps did not want to pass it out, constitute UI or AI to East? To North?

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2013-August-26, 04:49, said:

Somebody called you a table? That is indeed a breach of 74B5, and I fully understand why you find it harder and harder to survive in a world where people have a go.

barmar, on 2013-August-26, 10:50, said:

I hope this kind of nonsense isn't what's driving him away.

Absolutely not. A little bit of fun is no problem. On the other hand, pran criticising me for getting the facts wrong is pretty much the sort of thing I dislike. Were you there, pran? How do you know I got the facts wrong? Why are you assuming what something someone says is right and what someone else says is wrong? Why is it so obvious?

pran, on 2013-August-27, 01:46, said:

So much for having been given a precise description by OP "on the bits that matter".

That is the sort of post that I dislike and seems unnecessary. We should be discussing Laws and rulings, not whether a post is correct or otherwise because people in another country know what happened and know the description is wrong.

In fact, it would not matter a bent farthing if my description was wrong. It would be an interesting case to discuss, right or wrong. However, in my view, some of the posts here that make it clear what obviously happened are both wrong and unhelpful.

To be fair to pran, his is not the only post that suggests I have the facts wrong by people who were not there.

Ok, one of the posters was present. Might I remind everyone that when you get two sides disagreeing, that you have to rule between them and you do not - ok, no competent TD does - automatically assume the side that shouts loudest is correct. The equivalent of "shouting loudest" is when one side can present its case by being here, and one side cannot since they are not posting.

I am not suggesting that anything said by the poster was incorrect, just that the approach of certain posters is pretty unfortunate - and that is what is driving me away.

I think the legalities of this situation and the logic behind it is fascinating, but I think that it has become impossible for me to discuss it further. I shall not participate again in this thread.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2013-August-28, 09:40, said:

Were you there, pran? How do you know I got the facts wrong?

No, I was not there and I never wrote that you got the facts wrong.

But if you reread what I have written you will find that I pointed out some confusing details in OP and asked for a clarification which IMO was essential to make a ruling.

Then Jallerton presented what he claims happened and to me his description seemed far more credible. Most important it clarified all the doubtful (to me) items in OP thus enabling me to present how I think the case ought to be handled.


I still do not know whether your description is correct (but inaccurate) or Jallerton's is, but the latter at least gave sufficient information to initiate a ruling.

[pran]

I have no idea why my post first seemed ignored and then appeared as double post.

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2013-August-28, 12:20, said:

I have no idea why my post first seemed ignored and then appeared as double post.

Maybe you blocked yourself I assume Jallerton won't be telling us the vantage point from which he pronounced the "correct" set of events.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2013-August-28, 13:41, said:

Maybe you blocked yourself

Maybe? I couldn't tell

aguahombre, on 2013-August-28, 13:41, said:

I assume Jallerton won't be telling us the vantage point from which he pronounced the "correct" set of events.

Honestly I don't care.

[jallerton]

Sorry, I don't have time to respond immediately to posts made here.

I was the dozy West player. Quite how I managed to "see" my LHO pull out a pass card when he apparently overcalled 2♦ is a mystery. Furthermore, I did not immediately work out why my partner had "led" face down because at that stage my LHO had already put his bidding cards back in the bidding box (contrary to EBU regulations which state that "at the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the opening lead has been faced and all explanations have been obtained, after which they should be returned to their boxes").

My recollection of the facts is slightly more detailed than Bluejak's; this is partly because I was present at the table throughout whereas Bluejak was not called to the table until things had gone badly wrong.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2013-August-28, 09:40, said:

Ok, one of the posters was present. Might I remind everyone that when you get two sides disagreeing, that you have to rule between them and you do not - ok, no competent TD does - automatically assume the side that shouts loudest is correct. The equivalent of "shouting loudest" is when one side can present its case by being here, and one side cannot since they are not posting.

I am not suggesting that anything said by the poster was incorrect,

Yes, but to be fair, I did state comments as being "according to East", "according to West", etc. so readers were invited to believe or disbelieve these statements as they saw fit.

bluejak, on 2013-August-28, 09:40, said:

I think the legalities of this situation and the logic behind it is fascinating, but I think that it has become impossible for me to discuss it further. I shall not participate again in this thread.

Yes, it's an interesting situation. I was looking forward to understanding the reasoning behind your ruling, so I'm disappointed to read that we'll never find this out.

[pran]

jallerton, on 2013-August-28, 15:44, said:

Sorry, I don't have time to respond immediately to posts made here.

I was the dozy West player. Quite how I managed to "see" my LHO pull out a pass card when he apparently overcalled 2♦ is a mystery. Furthermore, I did not immediately work out why my partner had "led" face down because at that stage my LHO had already put his bidding cards back in the bidding box (contrary to EBU regulations which state that "at the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the opening lead has been faced and all explanations have been obtained, after which they should be returned to their boxes").

My recollection of the facts is slightly more detailed than Bluejak's; this is partly because I was present at the table throughout whereas Bluejak was not called to the table until things had gone badly wrong.

Thanks for this clarification as well!

[gordontd]

jallerton, on 2013-August-28, 15:59, said:

Yes, it's an interesting situation. I was looking forward to understanding the reasoning behind your ruling, so I'm disappointed to read that we'll never find this out.

I was waiting to find out what the ruling was. Something tells me it wasn't the obvious one given several times above, and if not I'd have been interested too in the reasoning.

[PhilKing]

Unless we here what the ruling was, I intend to throw my toys out of the pram.

[paulg]

PhilKing, on 2013-August-29, 05:58, said:

Unless we here what the ruling was, I intend to throw my toys out of the pram.

Presumably at the grammar police.

[PhilKing]

paulg, on 2013-August-29, 06:20, said:

Presumably at the grammar police.

Here, here!

[GreenMan]

PhilKing, on 2013-August-29, 06:34, said:

Here, here!

There, there.

[ahydra]

PhilKing, on 2013-August-29, 05:58, said:

Unless we here what the ruling was, I intend to throw my toys out of the pram.

Missed an obvious chance for a "pran" pun, given pran's moderately-hostile responses in this thread.

And yes, I hope bluejak comes back and tells us what his actual ruling was. It seems despite the kerfuffle, assuming West would have just passed we have an obvious resolution: North is playing 2D and East led the SA. If West wants to bid... hmm.

ahydra

[FrancesHinden]

West does indeed want to bid. He carefully hasn't said so yet (to the TD) to avoid giving UI in case he isn't allowed to.

[pran]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-August-29, 13:13, said:

West does indeed want to bid. He carefully hasn't said so yet (to the TD) to avoid giving UI in case he isn't allowed to.

Based on Jallerton's description I believe that opportunity was spoiled by East facing his "opening lead" (after South facing his cards).

[jallerton]

pran, on 2013-August-27, 01:46, said:

Ruling: West called attention to an irregularity, North/South objected, but instead of waiting for the Director South put her hand down. Start with Laws 9B and 11A.

You suggest starting with Laws 9B and 11A, but which Laws do you use after those?