[pran]

In post #42

jallerton, on 2017-July-10, 15:52, said:

Yes, pushing the tray part way through after the auction is over is a custom/habit amongst some players (typically the ones who plan to remove the tray from the table at the end of the auction) and yes the regulations do not authorise this practice.

gordontd, on 2017-July-13, 15:21, said:

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

I don't need any. The players involved had made up their own rule. North (and East) informed South and West that the auction was completed.

[barmar]

jallerton, on 2017-July-13, 15:48, said:

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!

While he couldn't pull the tray himself, he could have pointed out to South that he needed to pull the tray.

However, I'm with the interpretation of "North or South (as the case may be)" means that it's the pusher's responsibility, not a joint responsibility. Although what I've generally noticed when I've watched screen play is that it usually gets pushed about 3/4 of the way, then the opposite player takes over and pulls it the last bit.

I've probably seen the halfway push, but it's practically always in really obvious cases -- 1NT-2♣-2♦-3NT-halfpush. Similar to the situations at normal tables where everyone just start picking up their bidding cards.

[axman]

jallerton, on 2017-July-13, 15:48, said:

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!

Well, he did not wait for the bidding cards to come into view, or did he? Let's see about that. He picked up his cards. In my book, he created- and is solely responsible for his own misunderstanding that arose.

[Zelandakh]

axman, on 2017-July-14, 12:30, said:

Well, he did not wait for the bidding cards to come into view, or did he? Let's see about that. He picked up his cards. In my book, he created- and is solely responsible for his own misunderstanding that arose.

Say you are playing without screens and the auction starts with your partner bidding 1NT, then pass from the right and also from you. At this point there is a loud explosion from outside and you briefly turn. When you look back you see everyone picking up their bidding cards. Would you really consider the possibility that LHO had doubled and noone else had noticed? Would you think it a fair ruling that you, of the 4 people at the table, were solely responsible for your misunderstanding?

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2017-July-02, 12:36, said:

Without talking to East/West, North/South tell a TD that this board has been mis-scored and ask him to cancel the score in the Bridgemate, which is then re-entered as 1NTx-2.

If I were East or West, I wouldn't be very happy about this.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2017-July-13, 23:52, said:

I don't need any. The players involved had made up their own rule. North (and East) informed South and West that the auction was completed.

Made up their own rule? In your experience, do people never do this? In my experience they (and I am afraid I must include myself) do it all the time when the auction is finished. Both South and West concluded that the auction was over. Was this just some kind of weird coincidence?

[pran]

jallerton, on 2017-July-02, 12:36, said:

Without talking to East/West, North/South tell a TD that this board has been mis-scored and ask him to cancel the score in the Bridgemate, which is then re-entered as 1NTx-2.

gnasher, on 2017-July-17, 06:30, said:

If I were East or West, I wouldn't be very happy about this.

Nor should I,

First question: Did East or West "confirm" the re-entered score on the Bridgemate?

If they did then they may find themselves in trouble.

but if the re-entered score was "confirmed" by somebody else then the score has been illegally re-entered and we may find a whole can of worms opened.

In any case I would appeal the entire board as having been illegally played.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2017-July-17, 09:32, said:

Made up their own rule? In your experience, do people never do this? In my experience they (and I am afraid I must include myself) do it all the time when the auction is finished. Both South and West concluded that the auction was over. Was this just some kind of weird coincidence?

Players certainly make up their own laws or rules, but we teach them that they will only damage themselves when they do.
Example: I have been called to tables only to discover that a player (for whatever reason) has a penalty card without my knowledge. I frequently then use Law 11 and order the "penalty card" restored with no (further) rectification.

As for this case I have never experienced players violating the rule that the tray shall be pushed all the way until both sides have seen the auction completed with three closing passes.

Here the players apparently have established their own regulation (in place of the WBF regulation) that a tray pushed only half way through the screen means that all outstanding calls are passes.
Well then, so be it. Whatever call North or East may have placed on the tray without pushing the tray all the way through shall be taken as pass.

(Effectively this "private" regulation cancels any understanding of the WBF regulation that a call other than pass is made even if the tray is not pushed all the way through.)

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2017-July-17, 10:04, said:

As for this case I have never experienced players violating the rule that the tray shall be pushed all the way until both sides have seen the auction completed with three closing passes.

Wow! Have you actually played much with screens, Pran? In my experience it is pretty unusual for the auction to be completed with three closing passes in the first place, let alone for both sides to see this. (The main exception to this, I guess, is if the players anticipate that explanations are likely to be wanted that have not yet been made.) Most of the time, the player due to make the third pass will pick up his bidding cards or wave his hand to indicate a pass, just as people do without screens (and yes, of course I know this isn't what the rules say, either.) Then his or her screenmate will pick up their own bidding cards. Whether the tray is now pushed far enough under the screen for the players on the other side to see the lack of bidding cards, or whether they deduce this from the fact that the tray is only pushed a little way under the screen is largely a matter of chance.

I'm not sure what I should deduce from this experience about how to rule in this case. But I don't see that pretending this sort of behaviour is exceptional gets us very far.

[pran]

WellSpyder, on 2017-July-17, 10:17, said:

Wow! Have you actually played much with screens, Pran? In my experience it is pretty unusual for the auction to be completed with three closing passes in the first place, let alone for both sides to see this. (The main exception to this, I guess, is if the players anticipate that explanations are likely to be wanted that have not yet been made.) Most of the time, the player due to make the third pass will pick up his bidding cards or wave his hand to indicate a pass, just as people do without screens (and yes, of course I know this isn't what the rules say, either.) Then his or her screenmate will pick up their own bidding cards. Whether the tray is now pushed far enough under the screen for the players on the other side to see the lack of bidding cards, or whether they deduce this from the fact that the tray is only pushed a little way under the screen is largely a matter of chance.

I'm not sure what I should deduce from this experience about how to rule in this case. But I don't see that pretending this sort of behaviour is exceptional gets us very far.

No, I haven't played with screens at all, but I have directed some. (That is why I used the word "experienced")

And my experience is that players normally follow the screen regulation to the letter (including the procedure when the auction is ended):

After all four players have had the possibility to study the auction (equivalent to the possibility to have the entire auction repeated) they shall restore their bidding cards to the respective boxes.

Then after a legal opening lead has been made shall the screen window be opened so that all players can see dummy's cards and the cards played to each trick.

[jallerton]

pran, on 2017-July-17, 11:00, said:

No, I haven't played with screens at all, but I have directed some. (That is why I used the word "experienced")

And my experience is that players normally follow the screen regulation to the letter (including the procedure when the auction is ended):

I can believe that you haven't played any boards with screens; if you had, your experience would be different.

I have played thousands of boards with screens. Although most players try to adhere to the spirit of the screen regulations, I have not encountered a single player who has followed every screen regulation to the letter. For example:

• Over 99% of the time, cards are removed from the board before the screen aperture is closed.
  
• Virtually nobody follows the official procedure for alerting.
  
• The majority of explanations are not made in writing.

[blackshoe]

"Screw the rules, I'm gonna do what I want."

[pran]

jallerton, on 2017-July-18, 16:09, said:

I can believe that you haven't played any boards with screens; if you had, your experience would be different.

Or I have just been lucky with the events I have directed or observed?

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2017-July-19, 01:26, said:

Or I have just been lucky with the events I have directed or observed?

Sounds to me like a form of confirmation bias - you did not get any director calls from incorrect procedure, therefore everyone must have been following procedure correctly.

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-19, 06:44, said:

Sounds to me like a form of confirmation bias - you did not get any director calls from incorrect procedure, therefore everyone must have been following procedure correctly.

We were watching. (discreetely)

[barmar]

jallerton, on 2017-July-18, 16:09, said:

[*]The majority of explanations are not made in writing.

Indeed. I have never seen anyone give a written explanation for things like strong club and weak diamond response. The strong club explanation is usually either a clenched fist or pointing up, while the weak diamond response is indicated by pointing down. Many other hand signals are used, e.g. holding up 3 fingers for a support double.

Written explanations are used when there's no obvious hand signal and it's an unusual agreement.

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2017-July-17, 06:30, said:

If I were East or West, I wouldn't be very happy about this.

I was West and I was not very happy. There was a regulation in force saying that once a score had been entered and accepted in the Bridgemate, it could not be altered unless both sides agreed. This regulation was clearly not followed in this case.

It took over 24 hours for the TD to rule on the case; eventually he referred the case to the Chief TD to ask him to decide. The Chief TD's ruling was that the double should stand. Unfortunately, the rationale for this ruling was not communicated.

This whole episode left a sour taste in the mouth.

[nige1]

The chief-director might have been inhibited from dispensing justice by his reluctance to criticise the table-director for his illegal score-change.

Such daft travesties seem inevitable while players deliberately flout regulations and directors condone these infractions.

If basic regulations were incorporated into the laws, then, perhaps, we would all take more notice.

IMO rules should stipulate that bid-cards stay visible until dummy is exposed.

[blackshoe]

If a chief director is reluctant to criticize his table directors when they screw up, why is he chief director?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-July-22, 19:26, said:

If a chief director is reluctant to criticize his table directors when they screw up, why is he chief director?

Was he too unqualified?