[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-July-03, 18:11, said:

I suspect that pushing the tray partway through is a habit or custom to allow all four players to remove their cards from the tray after the auction is over. I also suspect that the regulation does not authorize this custom.

This is my experience, but I admit that I don't know the regulation either.

[gordontd]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-04, 07:56, said:

There is nothing here about sole responsibility for noticing an error on passing the tray and so I would expect the joint responsibility from previous versions of the regulations still to be in force (from memory it even explicitly stated in earlier versions of the White Book that the tray being passed incorrectly was both sides at fault).

You quoted above:

Quote

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.

North South have failed in this duty and that has caused the problem.

[Zelandakh]

gordontd, on 2017-July-04, 13:42, said:

North South have failed in this duty and that has caused the problem.

But the question is not whether N-S are directly at fault but rather whether E-W are partially at fault or have zero responsibility to notice what has happened.

[gordontd]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-04, 15:23, said:

But the question is not whether N-S are directly at fault but rather whether E-W are partially at fault or have zero responsibility to notice what has happened.

I said a long way back that I think they have some responsibility.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2017-July-04, 06:37, said:

What club?

The one appointed as Tournament organizer for this event - See Law 80B

[Zelandakh]

gordontd, on 2017-July-04, 15:40, said:

I said a long way back that I think they have some responsibility.

I realise this but pran posted otherwise, hence the discussion. Apparently the Norwegian translation has a clause stating sole responsibility for N-S; or perhaps there was some language confusion and he meant to agree with you. In any case, that combined with his ruling that not pushing the tray after placing a bidding card is indicative of passing seemed worthy of further investigation.

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-04, 23:37, said:

I realise this but pran posted otherwise, hence the discussion. Apparently the Norwegian translation has a clause stating sole responsibility for N-S; or perhaps there was some language confusion and he meant to agree with you. In any case, that combined with his ruling that not pushing the tray after placing a bidding card is indicative of passing seemed worthy of further investigation.

North was clearly the only offender in this case.

However the other three players at the table may be held responsible for not noticing and/or for accepting the irregularity.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-04, 16:18, said:

The one appointed as Tournament organizer for this event - See Law 80B

That would be the European Bridge League, according to the thread title.

[pran]

pran, on 2017-July-04, 16:18, said:

The one appointed as Tournament organizer for this event - See Law 80B

gordontd, on 2017-July-05, 01:34, said:

That would be the European Bridge League, according to the thread title.

Was this really a European championship?

(Don't confuse the Regulating Authority and the Tournament Organizer!)

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-July-05, 05:40, said:

Was this really a European championship?

(Don't confuse the Regulating Authority and the Tournament Organizer!)

The fact that screens are in use suggest a high-level event of some kind. Are there really any clubs that use screens?

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-July-05, 01:09, said:

North was clearly the only offender in this case.

However the other three players at the table may be held responsible for not noticing and/or for accepting the irregularity.

North was clearly responsible for not pushing the tray through completely. But does that really make him responsible for the bidding problem that resulted?

This is kind of like the more common threads we've had about players picking up their bidding cards instead of pulling a Pass card from the box on the last round of bidding. If the auction goes "1NT Pass 3NT Pass" and then opener picks up his bidding cards, would that really be an excuse for the next two players to think the auction is over?

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-05, 05:40, said:

Was this really a European championship?

(Don't confuse the Regulating Authority and the Tournament Organizer!)

I don't confuse them. My deduction is that this took place in the European Opens at Montecatini. jallerton will be able to confirm or correct this.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2017-July-05, 09:43, said:

I don't confuse them. My deduction is that this took place in the European Opens at Montecatini. jallerton will be able to confirm or correct this.

And I stand by my statement (only modified to fit any kind of organizer):

Apparently the club tournament organizer in question has established its own private screen regulation?

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-July-05, 09:18, said:

North was clearly responsible for not pushing the tray through completely. But does that really make him responsible for the bidding problem that resulted?

This is kind of like the more common threads we've had about players picking up their bidding cards instead of pulling a Pass card from the box on the last round of bidding. If the auction goes "1NT Pass 3NT Pass" and then opener picks up his bidding cards, would that really be an excuse for the next two players to think the auction is over?

Yes, I believe it is a common rule that any person violating a law is liable for the direct consequences from such violation?

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-July-05, 13:23, said:

And I stand by my statement (only modified to fit any kind of organizer):

Apparently the club tournament organizer in question has established its own private screen regulation?

Is there any evidence that this tradition is actually incorporated in any established regulation?

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-05, 13:23, said:

And I stand by my statement (only modified to fit any kind of organizer):

Apparently the club tournament organizer in question has established its own private screen regulation?

Actually you modified your statement more than that. But I don't think the WBF/EBL screen regulations can be described as "private".

[jallerton]

gordontd, on 2017-July-05, 09:43, said:

I don't confuse them. My deduction is that this took place in the European Opens at Montecatini. jallerton will be able to confirm or correct this.

Your deduction is correct. EBL is the abbreviation for European Bridge League.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2017-July-05, 14:45, said:

Actually you modified your statement more than that. But I don't think the WBF/EBL screen regulations can be described as "private".

Of course not.
But if a tournament organizer makes (or recognizes) its own special regulation for a particular event in conflict with the published official regulation then that special regulation is certainly "private", even if the tournament organizer happens to be EBL.

However, I cannot imagine WBF, EBL or even an NBO acting like this. That was why I automatically assumed that the happening must have occurred in a local club of soome sort.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-05, 15:37, said:

Of course not.
But if a tournament organizer makes (or recognizes) its own special regulation for a particular event in conflict with the published official regulation then that special regulation is certainly "private", even if the tournament organizer happens to be EBL.

However, I cannot imagine WBF, EBL or even an NBO acting like this. That was why I automatically assumed that the happening must have occurred in a local club of soome sort.

Acting like what? We haven't been told what was ruled.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2017-July-05, 15:40, said:

Acting like what? We haven't been told what was ruled.

True.
But what action (if any) was actually taken by the Director?

Obviously he should have imposed a PP to North for not making his double and East's subsequent pass visible to the other side of the screen.

The consequence of this irregularity was that South and West must assume that North curtailed the auction leaving the contract at 1NT undoubled.