[jallerton]

Screens in use.

On the last board of the set, North/South have an uncontested auction and South becomes declarer.

As soon as the auction is over, North leaves the table. (It is not known why he felt the need to do so.)

West (who has obtain written explanations of the meaning of the auction) makes an opening lead.

However, East wants to know the meaning of the North/South auction and has not had a chance to obtain explanations during the auction period.

Two questions:

1. What do you do as East?
2. If your answer to question 1 is that East should call the TD, now suppose that you are the TD. What do you do on hearing East's problem?

[pran]

jallerton, on 2011-July-28, 15:31, said:

Screens in use.

On the last board of the set, North/South have an uncontested auction and South becomes declarer.

As soon as the auction is over, North leaves the table. (It is not known why he felt the need to do so.)

West (who has obtain written explanations of the meaning of the auction) makes an opening lead.

However, East wants to know the meaning of the North/South auction and has not had a chance to obtain explanations during the auction period.

Two questions:

1. What do you do as East?
2. If your answer to question 1 is that East should call the TD, now suppose that you are the TD. What do you do on hearing East's problem?

My answer is indeed that East should call the TD. As TD I would summon North back to the table immediately and, unless he can provide a very good reason for leaving the table, fine him with a PP for obstructing the game.

(I do wonder why East did not object to North leaving the table. Was North too quick for East to react?)

PS.: If North now is out of reach (catched the last train home or something similar) I would allow South to explain the auction so that normal play could be completed, but definitely fine North with a PP.

[blackshoe]

Do you care, Sven, why North left the table?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-28, 15:55, said:

Do you care, Sven, why North left the table?

Sure, that is why I wrote: unless he can provide a very good reason for leaving the table

[blackshoe]

If it's not an individual, you can't fine North alone; you can only fine NS, the contestant. But that's a small nit.

If I were the North in question, I would be in the men's room - and depending just what I was doing in there, I might or might not respond immediately to your summons. You can issue a PP to me for that once. After that, I won't be playing where you direct any more.

The laws say that explanations should "normally" be given by the partner of the player whose call or play is being explained. Unless the screen regulations prohibit it, then, the TD can allow South to explain his own calls. If this turns out to create a problem later, the TD will probably have to adjust the score; he can always issue a PP at that time, if he wishes. When North returns to the table, I'll find out where he went and why. I may issue a PP; it may be in the form of a warning. I will give him the chance to correct his partner's explanation, if necessary. If I know that he's close by and not indisposed, I might go get him. But I'm not going to spend several minutes looking for him while the other three players sit idle.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-28, 16:24, said:

If it's not an individual, you can't fine North alone; you can only fine NS, the contestant. But that's a small nit.

If I were the North in question, I would be in the men's room - and depending just what I was doing in there, I might or might not respond immediately to your summons. You can issue a PP to me for that once. After that, I won't be playing where you direct any more.

The laws say that explanations should "normally" be given by the partner of the player whose call or play is being explained. Unless the screen regulations prohibit it, then, the TD can allow South to explain his own calls. If this turns out to create a problem later, the TD will probably have to adjust the score; he can always issue a PP at that time, if he wishes. When North returns to the table, I'll find out where he went and why. I may issue a PP; it may be in the form of a warning. I will give him the chance to correct his partner's explanation, if necessary. If I know that he's close by and not indisposed, I might go get him. But I'm not going to spend several minutes looking for him while the other three players sit idle.

I know very well that PPs are issued to the contestant; when I say that I fine North the fine applies to the whole team. This is only a way of saying that I consider North to be "responsible" for the fine.

For instance an urgent need for going to the men's room in order to avoid a scandal is in my opinion "a very good reason". If that is the situation, and in particular if North can complete his (emergency) mission without causing a late play then that would be end of story as far as I am concerned. (I would, however, remind players never to leave the table during play without information on why.)

Most screen regulations I know of include prohibition against any communication across the screen, so letting South explain the auction is an irregularity that TD should only allow if absolutely necessary to complete "normal" play of the board.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2011-July-28, 15:31, said:

Screens in use.

On the last board of the set, North/South have an uncontested auction and South becomes declarer.

As soon as the auction is over, North leaves the table. (It is not known why he felt the need to do so.)

West (who has obtain written explanations of the meaning of the auction) makes an opening lead.

However, East wants to know the meaning of the North/South auction and has not had a chance to obtain explanations during the auction period.

Two questions:

1. What do you do as East?

Call the TD.

jallerton, on 2011-July-28, 15:31, said:

2. If your answer to question 1 is that East should call the TD, now suppose that you are the TD. What do you do on hearing East's problem?

Wait for North to return, and get him to answer questions. At the end of the hand I find out why he left the table, and consider the possibilities of a PP for delay of game, a mild warning, and no rebuke of any sort but tell the table that E/W have more latitude than N/S if the table runs out of time, all dependent on his answer.

[blackshoe]

Hm. Not all that familiar with the workings of screens. Does the screen remain in place throughout the play? If not, when is it removed?

[barmar]

The screen is attached to the table and stays there during the entire session. There's a door at the bottom of the screen; during the auction it's closed, during the play it's opened so the players can see the cards on the other side.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2011-July-28, 17:45, said:

Call the TD.


Wait for North to return, and get him to answer questions. At the end of the hand I find out why he left the table, and consider the possibilities of a PP for delay of game, a mild warning, and no rebuke of any sort but tell the table that E/W have more latitude than N/S if the table runs out of time, all dependent on his answer.

How long would you wait for? In practice, North did not return to the table of his own volition.

[blackshoe]

Why not?

[bluejak]

Find out why not, expecting to give Ave+/zero if necessary.

[jallerton]

I was West. This was the last board of a 10-board set and a break of about 30 minutes was scheduled next.

Why did North not return to the table? I don't know, but I imagine that he assumed the play would be completed and the table would be abandoned by the time he had finished his comfort break/cigarette.

In practice we did not call the TD. It seemed obvious that the objective of allowing East to know the North/South partnership understanding could be achieved by South explaining the bidding to East (indeed South had already written down an explanation for West).

No doubt Bluejak's average plus/zero ruling is technically correct (although I wonder (i) whether he could take into account the contract reached in the auction (ii) how he translates 'zero' into IMPs and (iii) whether he would have considered the result at our teammates' table - Law 86D). However, I do prefer Sven's practical answer, which has the merit of achieving a normal bridge result.

[mrdct]

Most screen regulations don't allow for any communication across the screen unless the TD permits it, so the simple solution is call the TD who will presumably simply get south to explain the auction to east through the aperture. I can't imagine east-west ever being damaged by north not being around to explain his side's bids to east as west will always be basing his opening lead on what south told him and east is about to see north's hand on the table and would've got the north-south explanations from the closed hand. If north's hand doesn't happen to coincide with south's explations, east-west will be fully protected.

I think it's quite rude to leave the table without at the very least seeking permission from your opponents and I would probably give north a firm "talking to" but probably not a procedural penalty if he hasn't been given a warning before.

[barmar]

At one point in tonight's Spingold final, after an auction was over, East (Zia, I think) told North that he could ask West (Hamman) to confirm that his explanation of a bid was correct. I don't think he did so, but having read this thread I realized that this would not really be legal unless a TD were called to allow it.

[mrdct]

barmar, on 2011-July-31, 21:48, said:

At one point in tonight's Spingold final, after an auction was over, East (Zia, I think) told North that he could ask West (Hamman) to confirm that his explanation of a bid was correct. I don't think he did so, but having read this thread I realized that this would not really be legal unless a TD were called to allow it.

Depends on the screen regulations in force. Under WBF regulations it would not be allowed, but I think under ACBL regulations it is allowed.

ACBL Special Conditions Pertaining to the Use of Bidding Boxes and Screens said:

Explanation of Calls:

2. Prior to the Opening Lead:
a. The opening leader is permitted to ask for clarification in writing from his or her opponent on the other side of the screen.
b. The declaring side may, on their own initiative, confirm explanations given on the other side of the screen and is encouraged to do so for complex and potentially ambiguous auctions.

[pran]

mrdct, on 2011-July-31, 22:02, said:

Depends on the screen regulations in force. Under WBF regulations it would not be allowed, but I think under ACBL regulations it is allowed.
Explanation of Calls:
2. Prior to the Opening Lead:
a. The opening leader is permitted to ask for clarification in writing from his or her opponent on the other side of the screen.
b. The declaring side may, on their own initiative, confirm explanations given on the other side of the screen and is encouraged to do so for complex and potentially ambiguous auctions.

I am puzzled.
How can a declaring side player on one side of the screen know that there is an explanation given by his partner on the other side of the screen to confirm?

[mrdct]

pran, on 2011-August-01, 00:26, said:

I am puzzled.
How can a declaring side player on one side of the screen know that there is an explanation given by his partner on the other side of the screen to confirm?

If the auction included any artificial bids, it's reasonable for both declaring side players to assume that enquiries had been made on the other side of the screen. The ACBL don't actually stipulate that the "2b confirmation" be in writing, so I presume at the end of the auction if either of the declaring side are in any doubt they simply pipe-up and say something like "did you describe 4♠ as exclusion or a just a cue?".

As for the "2a confirmation", I guess the guy on lead just slips a note under the screen with whatever question he wants to ask his opponent on the other side of the screen. This probably throws up some UI issues though as his partner now has UI that his partner has some doubt about the explanations given on his side of the screen.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps there is some UI, mrdct, but I don't see how it can possibly suggest anything in particular, since he has no idea what explanations were given.

[mgoetze]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-28, 16:24, said:

If it's not an individual, you can't fine North alone; you can only fine NS, the contestant. But that's a small nit.

I would be very surprised to discover that, in the entire history of bridge, there had ever been an individual tournament using screens, except possibly at mrdct's home.