[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-12, 02:41, said:

However, as the procedure in connection with the double was illegal the Director has the power to rule that the double is void.

This really is nonsense and has been shown to be so throughout this thread, but you just never give way, do you?

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-12, 00:25, said:

...which is presumably why Gordon wrote:
a
back in post #6. That still seems like the most informed post in the thread.

A result was obtained on (a correct version of) the board so Law 12C2 may not be used.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-12, 07:32, said:

A result was obtained on (a correct version of) the board so Law 12C2 may not be used.

What result? 1NT-2 or 1NTx-2?

I imagine you'll say the former, but you can't just pretend a call wasn't made when it was.

[axman]

pran, on 2017-July-12, 02:41, said:

All players believed the auction was ended.
The only way this could be the case is if the "double" is void.

Law 12A2 says: The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will  permit normal play of the board (see C2 below). 

However, as the procedure in connection with the double was illegal the Director has the power to rule that the double is void. Such rectification permits normal play of the board, in fact the play actually done.

So I question the applicability of Law 12C2 in this case and stand by my previous ruling that the board shall be scored as played in the contract 1NT undoubled.

The principle of appearances suggests that after players return their bidding cards, and (to boot), play thirteen tricks that they all believed that the auction was complete. We know that at least one player of each side saw the double and east's subsequent pass. Thus, in order for the auction to be over ( as previously suggested) there needs to be two (more) passes in rotation so it is logical that S and W picking up their bidding cards is a euphemism for pass. Albeit, it is not unreasonable to believe that S and W acted on their own misunderstanding (L21) and have no recourse. This suggests (since reopening the auction is foreclosed) that the contract was 1NX, which does not preclude some sort of penalty for procedural irregularities.

[gordontd]

axman, on 2017-July-12, 09:54, said:

The principle of appearances suggests that after players return their bidding cards, and (to boot), play thirteen tricks that they all believed that the auction was complete.

Not only that, but the regulations tell us:

Quote

A player who removes one or more of his bidding cards from the tray in
an apparent attempt to “pass” is indeed deemed to have “passed”.

axman, on 2017-July-12, 09:54, said:

We know that at least one player of each side saw the double and east's subsequent pass. Thus, in order for the auction to be over ( as previously suggested) there needs to be two (more) passes in rotation so it is logical that S and W picking up their bidding cards is a euphemism for pass. Albeit, it is not unreasonable to believe that S and W acted on their own misunderstanding (L21) and have no recourse. This suggests (since reopening the auction is foreclosed) that the contract was 1NX, which does not preclude some sort of penalty for procedural irregularities.

The problem is that in picking up their bidding cards, neither South nor West was attempting to pass - they thought the auction was already over.

[blackshoe]

South and West acted on a misunderstanding created by North (because he didn't push the board completely through the screen). And euphemisms are not entertained by the rules of the game

I would rather award an artificial adjusted score of average minus to NS, average to EW, and a PP to NS for failure to comply with the screen regulations, than to award an assigned adjusted score on the basis that the double never happened and the hand was passed out. Note that I am not suggesting that the former is the correct ruling.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2017-July-12, 10:09, said:

The problem is that in picking up their bidding cards, neither South nor West was attempting to pass - they thought the auction was already over.

Precisely!

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2017-July-12, 17:27
Reason for edit: Fixed the quote tags

[pran]

gordontd, on 2017-July-12, 08:22, said:

What result? 1NT-2 or 1NTx-2?

I imagine you'll say the former, but you can't just pretend a call wasn't made when it was.

I do indeed say the former.

We don't know the agreements between North and South (or the actual hands), but if their agreement is that the double in this situatiion is for takeout then I find it likely that South might have bid something in response.
And if the double is for penalties then I find it equally likely that West might have bid something.

The fact that South and West were never informed about the double makes me extremely reluctant to consider 1NTx as the contract.

So my alternative to ruling 1NT-2 is to completely cancel the board and award artificial adjusted scores along the lines suggested by blackshoe above. (However, as alreay said I don't consider Law 12C2 applicable here.)

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-12, 14:32, said:

So my alternative to ruling 1NT-2 is to completely cancel the board and award artificial adjusted scores along the lines suggested by blackshoe above. (However, as alreay said I don't consider Law 12C2 applicable here.)

Then on what basis would you do that?

[pran]

gordontd, on 2017-July-12, 15:26, said:

Then on what basis would you do that?

The fact that South and West were never informed about the double makes me extremely reluctant to consider 1NTx as the contract.

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2017-July-13, 02:15, said:

The fact that South and West were never informed about the double makes me extremely reluctant to consider 1NTx as the contract.

Would you consider N-S getting the worse of Ave- and the table result in 1NTX and E-W getting the more favourable of Ave and the table result in 1NTX? Would such an arrangement even be legal for that matter?

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-13, 06:49, said:

Would you consider N-S getting the worse of Ave- and the table result in 1NTX and E-W getting the more favourable of Ave and the table result in 1NTX? Would such an arrangement even be legal for that matter?

I cannot answer your first question without knowing the relevant agreements, the actual hands and the actual results at other tables.

Some variation of the arrangement is legal provided weighted adjusted scores are permissible (Law 12C1), but I should expect an appeal from a suffering side to be granted (on the ground that South and West were never during the auction informed about the double).

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2017-July-13, 08:51, said:

I cannot answer your first question without knowing the relevant agreements, the actual hands and the actual results at other tables.

I would agree with you absolutely about the hands and agreements - if S or W has a clear removal for example (I was assuming not for the purposes of the previous post) - but I am not so sure about the results at other tables being relevant. Is it not standard TD procedure to ignore as much as possible specific events at other tables when making a ruling?

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-13, 02:15, said:

The fact that South and West were never informed about the double makes me extremely reluctant to consider 1NTx as the contract.

You want to cancel the board but you don't want to use L12. You need to use some law to do this. Your reluctance is not enough.

[axman]

axman, on 2017-July-12, 09:54, said:

The principle of appearances suggests that after players return their bidding cards, and (to boot), play thirteen tricks that they all believed that the auction was complete. We know that at least one player of each side saw the double and east's subsequent pass. Thus, in order for the auction to be over ( as previously suggested) there needs to be two (more) passes in rotation so it is logical that S and W picking up their bidding cards is a euphemism for pass. Albeit, it is not unreasonable to believe that S and W acted on their own misunderstanding (L21) and have no recourse. This suggests (since reopening the auction is foreclosed) that the contract was 1NX, which does not preclude some sort of penalty for procedural irregularities.

South and west had a responsibility to themselves to actually see the bidding cards. Thus, their failure to pull the tray completely was what created their misunderstanding. That they proceeded to play tricks in that state ought not relieve them of the consequences. The contract was doubled and ought to be scored as such. The benefit of doing so is that these players will be careful forever; and so will the hundreds of players that hear the story.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2017-July-13, 12:50, said:

You want to cancel the board but you don't want to use L12. You need to use some law to do this. Your reluctance is not enough.

No, I never want to cancel a board if I can avoid it.

[pran]

axman, on 2017-July-13, 12:51, said:

South and west had a responsibility to themselves to actually see the bidding cards. Thus, their failure to pull the tray completely was what created their misunderstanding. That they proceeded to play tricks in that state ought not relieve them of the consequences. The contract was doubled and ought to be scored as such. The benefit of doing so is that these players will be careful forever; and so will the hundreds of players that hear the story.

It is clear from this thread that the event took place in an environment where pushing the tray half way through is an accepted signal that only passes had been added so that the auction is completed.

This is of course a violation of regulation, but when players make up their own rules and then for whatever reason calls me later (when it is too late to rectify an irregularity in the proper way) I usually tell them: "You have made up your own rules, you have to live with them".

North (and East) here (according to these rules) clearly informed South and West that the auction was completed with only passes added last, so that the contract was 1NT undoubled. My ruling is therefore: "So be it".

(South and West have no responsibility here. They are not supposed to pull the tray, North is responsible for pushing it sufficiently far, and according to local rules pushing it only half way through was sufficient.)

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-13, 14:23, said:

(South and West have no responsibility here. They are not supposed to pull the tray, North is responsible for pushing it sufficiently far, and according to local rules pushing it only half way through was sufficient.)

And yet the regulations, quoted above by jallerton, say:

Quote

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.

Do you any more "alternative arguments" to offer us?

[blackshoe]

I read "the other side" as meaning the other side of the screen from the player (either North or South) doing the sliding. So when the tray is on the NE side of the screen, North is responsible for sliding it through so south and west can see the entire tray, and when the tray is on the SW side of the screen, South is so responsible. It's not, as I read it, a joint responsibility whichever way the tray is moving. So I agree that far with Sven, but not, I think, any farther.

[jallerton]

axman, on 2017-July-13, 12:51, said:

South and west had a responsibility to themselves to actually see the bidding cards. Thus, their failure to pull the tray completely was what created their misunderstanding. That they proceeded to play tricks in that state ought not relieve them of the consequences. The contract was doubled and ought to be scored as such. The benefit of doing so is that these players will be careful forever; and so will the hundreds of players that hear the story.

One point West made to the TD is that he is not permitted to touch the tray during the auction. So your suggestion that he created his own misunderstanding by failing to carry out the infraction of pulling the tray seems harsh!