[WellSpyder]

aguahombre, on 2014-December-15, 11:40, said:

Just out of curiosity....with screens, a player who did a finger-fumble is still allowed to apply 25A before his partner has bid. But what is the procedure? Does he say "Stop"? Does he toss the "Stop" or the "Director" card under the screen? How does he know whether partner has bid?

Erm, how does he become aware of his finger-fumble? If he can see the errant bid then presumably the tray has not yet been passed to the other side of the table, so his partner has not yet had a chance to call. If the tray is already the other side of the screen then he should no longer be able to see what bid he placed on the tray....

[chrism]

WellSpyder, on 2014-December-15, 11:48, said:

Erm, how does he become aware of his finger-fumble? If he can see the errant bid then presumably the tray has not yet been passed to the other side of the table, so his partner has not yet had a chance to call. If the tray is already the other side of the screen then he should no longer be able to see what bid he placed on the tray....

He might notice that the bid he intended to make is still in his bidding box, or that a higher bid than intended is missing from it.

[WellSpyder]

chrism, on 2014-December-15, 11:52, said:

He might notice that the bid he intended to make is still in his bidding box, or that a higher bid than intended is missing from it.

Good point. Looking at the EBU regulations for using screens suggests that the possibility of a 25A correction remains after the tray has been moved, but I can see no suggestions about how this should be approached by the player concerned.

[aguahombre]

Some people even carry a visual image of the bids they have made... and after the tray is moved, it sinks in what they have done. The bid was still unintended.

Anyway, I don't think the question is answered by saying it can't happen.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2014-December-15, 11:40, said:

Just out of curiosity....with screens, a player who did a finger-fumble is still allowed to apply 25A before his partner has bid. But what is the procedure? Does he say "Stop"? Does he toss the "Stop" or the "Director" card under the screen? How does he know whether partner has bid?

As far as I know all screen regulations specify (explicitly or implicitly) that you cannot apply Law 25A on an unintended call once the tray with it has been pushed to the other side of the screen.

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2014-December-15, 16:08, said:

As far as I know all screen regulations specify (explicitly or implicitly) that you cannot apply Law 25A on an unintended call once the tray with it has been pushed to the other side of the screen.

Wow. I didn't see where the screen regs had that kind of effect on the Laws themselves.

[jallerton]

VixTD, on 2014-December-15, 08:32, said:

Yes, this solution had occurred to me, and could provide a basis for giving redress for any damage caused, but I still don't feel very happy giving penalties to players who are following a law which specifically addresses the situation but falling foul of another that applies only indirectly.

I was advocating a rectification adjustment. That doesn't mean that you have to give anyone a procedural penalty, particularly if you judge that the player has acted in good faith.

VixTD, on 2014-December-15, 08:32, said:

I tried to find examples of laws which explicitly prevent players from doing things they are normally allowed to do, and I thought the most obvious place to look was under players required by law to pass. Oddly, they are forbidden to ask for a review of the auction (law 20B), but not to ask for an explanation (law 20F). (One could of course argue that a player required to pass can only be asking for partner's benefit and rule under law 20G1).

How about this? Law 19 says that a player may double the preceding bid, if that was made by an opponent. However, if a player has UI which (in the player's opinion) demonstrably suggests doubling over another logical alternative, then Laws 16B & 73C imply that the player must not double. The only way the player can apply with Law 19, 16A and 73C at the same time is to refrain from doubling.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2014-December-15, 17:46, said:

Wow. I didn't see where the screen regs had that kind of effect on the Laws themselves.

Every now and then, you have to choose between observing the full words of the law and dealing with reality and practicality. Reality usually wins.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2014-December-15, 21:47, said:

Every now and then, you have to choose between observing the full words of the law and dealing with reality and practicality. Reality usually wins.

Is that what the TD tells the guy who wants to make a 25A correction in a screen game? Or does he have a regulation to quote?

[gordontd]

pran, on 2014-December-15, 16:08, said:

As far as I know all screen regulations specify (explicitly or implicitly) that you cannot apply Law 25A on an unintended call once the tray with it has been pushed to the other side of the screen.

I don't see that in the WBF screen regs, which say:

Quote

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

and then don't mention L25 at all.

[barmar]

Section 1.2 of the WBF screen regs says:

Quote

A call placed and released may be changed under the Director's supervision:

• If it is illegal or inadmissible (in which case the change is obligatory), if screens
  are in use, as soon as either screenmate is aware of this; or
  
• If it is determined by the Director to be a call inadvertently selected or
  
• Under the provisions of Law 25. Under the provisions of Law 25A it should be
  noted that if a player's attention is diverted as he makes an unintended call
  the 'pause for thought' should be assessed from the moment when he first
  recognizes his error.

So case b seems to override Law 25 -- if the TD determines that the call was inadvertent, he can apparently allow the change at any time.
I'm not sure what the point of case c is, then, but it still doesn't provide any guideline to deal with the question agua raised.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2014-December-16, 11:15, said:

..... but it still doesn't provide any guideline to deal with the question agua raised.

Exactly. The question was about how the fumbler is supposed to implement a Law he is entitled to use. If he isn't entitled to use L25 at all after the tray has been passed, no one has shown me where it says that.

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2014-December-16, 11:15, said:

Section 1.2 of the WBF screen regs says:

Quote

A call placed and released may be changed under the Director's supervision:
(a) If it is illegal or inadmissible (in which case the change is obligatory), if screens are in use, as soon as either screenmate is aware of this; or

...

You might think that (a) could only apply before the illegal/inadmissible call is passed through the screen (because there are other regulations about what happens to irregularity that are passed through the screen).

In which case, you might wonder if (b) and (c) also only apply before the call is passed through the screen - but there is no way to tell.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2014-December-16, 11:15, said:

Section 1.2 of the WBF screen regs says:
So case b seems to override Law 25 -- if the TD determines that the call was inadvertent, he can apparently allow the change at any time.
I'm not sure what the point of case c is, then, but it still doesn't provide any guideline to deal with the question agua raised.

I had someone ask me about this in our Premier League this year. Because he waited he was clearly out of time so no ruling was needed, but what had happened was that he saw his unintended bid just as it was going under the screen. My colleague & I thought that the regulations were such that he would have been able to correct it if he had asked immediately, but we didn't like it.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2014-December-16, 11:26, said:

Exactly. The question was about how the fumbler is supposed to implement a Law he is entitled to use.

He does so by calling the director, of course. The director then determines whether the conditions of Law 25A are met, and if they are he allows the change.

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2014-December-16, 11:45, said:

I had someone ask me about this in our Premier League this year. Because he waited he was clearly out of time so no ruling was needed, but what had happened was that he saw his unintended bid just as it was going under the screen. My colleague & I thought that the regulations were such that he would have been able to correct it if he had asked immediately, but we didn't like it.

What didn't you like about it? If the bid was inadvertent and his partner hasn't yet bid, the cost of allowing a change is no more or less than it would have been without screens.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2014-December-17, 02:13, said:

What didn't you like about it? If the bid was inadvertent and his partner hasn't yet bid, the cost of allowing a change is no more or less than it would have been without screens.

We didn't like that it goes against the grain to make corrections across the screen. As I say though, we decided that would have, had it been in time.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2014-December-17, 02:11, said:

He does so by calling the director, of course. The director then determines whether the conditions of Law 25A are met, and if they are he allows the change.

Is a director call "heard" by the other side of the screen so that they do not act?

[VixTD]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-15, 10:33, said:

I don't think 20G1 applies here — all four players at the table are entitled to understand the meaning of the auction, whether or not they're required to pass. "Can only be asking for partner's benefit" does not follow from the facts.

If they are entitled to understand the meaning of the auction, why are they barred from asking for a review of the auction?

If the answer to a question cannot affect a player's action they are discouraged from asking at that point. A player forced to pass could ask questions at the end of the auction.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2014-December-17, 07:08, said:

If they are entitled to understand the meaning of the auction, why are they barred from asking for a review of the auction?

If the answer to a question cannot affect a player's action they are discouraged from asking at that point. A player forced to pass could ask questions at the end of the auction.

Who are barred?

Law 20 B said:

During the auction period, a player is entitled to have all previous calls restated* when it is his turn to call, unless he is required by law to pass. Alerts should be included when responding to the request. A player may not ask for a partial review of previous calls and may not halt the review before it is completed.

and

Law 20 C 2 said:

Declarer** or either defender may, at his first turn to play, require all previous calls to be restated*. (See Laws 41B and 41C). As in B the player may not ask for only a partial restatement or halt the review.

(Of course a player who is required by Law to pass has no legitimate need for understanding the auction so far, but he is indeed entitled to such understanding during the play. Thus the difference between L20B and L20C2)