[FrancesHinden]

You could argue that North bid 3NT, East passed and then North changed his call from 3NT to a pass, and East accepted it (25B). Which means the contract was 2NT.
Unless East really believes that North wanted to change to a pass, this ruling seems a bit unfair on NS because both sides were at fault.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-13, 09:57, said:

Actually, if a wash means no score on the board, to me it means zero IMPS differential on the board. It doesn't mean adjusting to anything which looks like a score at either table.

What's difference does it make? Both result in the same scores.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2014-April-14, 09:21, said:

What's difference does it make? Both result in the same scores.

It probably doesn't in reality, but I was thinking how silly it would look in MFA1010's 6D=1370 example.

[mycroft]

you could argue that both sides were at fault for bidding 3NT and picking up their cards, like they always do, forgetting there's a screen and their teammates haven't seen it yet. Slight sarcasm tag here, but still.

If both are at fault, then N-S get the score on the board with the contract that was bid, so 3NT-1. E-W get the score on the board with the play to try to make 3, which will work; 3NT=.

Yes, the arguments against this are legion (there was no complete auction, yep, and so on and so forth); but it's a nice simple way of making sure it never happens again. Tell me it wasn't a KO so we don't have to fudge the numbers to get a single result.

[pran]

mycroft, on 2014-April-14, 09:45, said:

you could argue that both sides were at fault for bidding 3NT and picking up their cards, like they always do, forgetting there's a screen and their teammates haven't seen it yet. Slight sarcasm tag here, but still.

If both are at fault, then N-S get the score on the board with the contract that was bid, so 3NT-1. E-W get the score on the board with the play to try to make 3, which will work; 3NT=.

Yes, the arguments against this are legion (there was no complete auction, yep, and so on and so forth); but it's a nice simple way of making sure it never happens again. Tell me it wasn't a KO so we don't have to fudge the numbers to get a single result.

Don't you think that cancelling the Board and awarding artificial adjusted scores having each team pay out 3 IMPs, or alternatively "fine" each team 1 VP will have the same result of making sure it never happens again?

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2014-April-15, 01:55, said:

Don't you think that cancelling the Board and awarding artificial adjusted scores having each team pay out 3 IMPs, or alternatively "fine" each team 1 VP will have the same result of making sure it never happens again?

Sure it will. But why would you cancel a board and award artificial adjusted scores when the players have started the bidding?

There was an infraction during the auction, which was found out after the hand is finished. That is nothing special, it happens all the time. The way to deal with these cases is to look what would have happened had the infraction not occurred. You don't just start canceling boards and award average minuses (or their IMP equivalent).

And if you want to deter the players from making this mistake again, you hand out PPs.

Rik

[mfa1010]

While I agree with your view, Rik, I do think that the laws are regrettably vague about how to handle this, when both sides has blaim.

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-15, 06:33, said:

Sure it will. But why would you cancel a board and award artificial adjusted scores when the players have started the bidding?

There was an infraction during the auction, which was found out after the hand is finished. That is nothing special, it happens all the time. The way to deal with these cases is to look what would have happened had the infraction not occurred. You don't just start canceling boards and award average minuses (or their IMP equivalent).

And if you want to deter the players from making this mistake again, you hand out PPs.

Rik

The problem isn't that they have started the bidding, the problem is that they have started playing and completed the play without having completed the auction. Consequently the Director has no foundation for ruling which contract was played and what the result should be.

In this particular situation I might accept an assigned adjusted score of 3NT just made combined with a procedure penalty 1 VP to both teams.

This is because there appears to be an overwhelming probability that without the irregularities 3NT just made would have been the result. (Did they play 3NT just made at every other table playing this board?)

[mycroft]

1) removing a completed board and replacing it with an artificial adjusted score, because "it's too hard" to assign scores, isn't encouraged.
2) It might be necessary, however, as after all, the auction didn't complete. Having said that, how many auctions don't complete? Even playing with screens? I would have expected that had this not happened, 3NT-p will get pushed through the screen, the cards would have been picked up on the S-W side, the tray would have been pushed halfway back so N-E can get their cards, with a knock on the flap saying we've led. The auction didn't complete there, either.
3) I don't like assigning 3NT= to both sides, penalty or no, assuming we don't throw the board out because of the incomplete auction. Surely, without the infraction by E, South would have played to make 9 tricks instead of safe for 8; that works, or at least is likely to work; E/W 3NTS=. But without the infraction by N, South would have known the contract he was playing; therefore the safe play for -1 was entirely caused by N's infraction; therefore I don't see any reason to adjust the score for N/S: 3NTS-1.

[jallerton]

gordontd, on 2014-April-12, 16:54, said:

The EBL screen regulations require any such change to have been made under the TD's supervision.

Our EBU screen regulations don't allow any change under L25B in any case, and I have been led to believe that the EBL version of the wording was due to careless drafting and they wouldn't really allow a change of this sort.

OK, fair enough. I was reasoning that the 3NT bid had not been communicated across the screen, so did not form part of the legal auction.

If the 3NT bid is regarded as having been made, then I like an adjustment similar to mycroft's latest suggestion. Assuming that the TD determines that South would have made 9 tricks had he known he was in 3NT, E/W as an offending side (East's infraction was picking up his bidding cards prematurely) have their score adjusted to conceding 3NT= by South. Subsequent to East's infraction of picking up his bidding cards, North failed to ensure that the N/E bidding cards were returned to the tray and pushed over to the other side of the screen. This was a wild action by North subsequent to the infraction by East, so N/S do not receive relief for that part of the damage which is deemed to have been self-inflicted, i.e. all of it. This approach concentrates on East's initial infraction rather than North's, but it seems to lead to an equitable ruling in the context of what has happened.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2014-April-14, 09:45, said:

If both are at fault, then N-S get the score on the board with the contract that was bid, so 3NT-1. E-W get the score on the board with the play to try to make 3, which will work; 3NT=.

Using which law(s)?

Re: "Canceled": I suppose calling a board on which you intend to give or have given an artificial adjusted score is common, but I think it's nonsense. To me, "canceled" referring to a board means what it means in law 82B2. IOW, the play of the board is canceled, the board is treated as having not been scheduled to be played by the pairs concerned. It didn't happen. If it didn't happen, you aren't giving any kind of adjusted score on it.

[jallerton]

Those considering assigning average minus to both sides on this deal might do well to read WBFLC minute 2008-10-10#3:

Quote

When the Director is empowered elsewhere in the laws simply to “award an adjusted score” he refers to Law12 to determine whether this will be an assigned or an artificial adjusted score. Law 12 intends that whenever he is able to award an assigned adjusted score he does so; if Law 12C1 (d) or Law 12C2 (a) applies the adjusted score is artificial.
Note that 12C2(a) does not say “no result has been obtained” but “no result can be obtained”, so that if a board is incomplete but has reached a stage when completion of the board can be foreseen an assigned score is appropriate.

[axman]

mycroft, on 2014-April-15, 11:26, said:

2) It might be necessary, however, as after all, the auction didn't complete.

At S’s turn to call, did S elect to bid, double or redouble? No.

At W’s turn to call, did W elect to bid, double or redouble? No.

From WBF2008:

Pass — a call specifying that a player does not, at that turn, elect to bid, double or redouble.

[mfa1010]

jallerton, on 2014-April-15, 12:15, said:

OK, fair enough. I was reasoning that the 3NT bid had not been communicated across the screen, so did not form part of the legal auction.

If the 3NT bid is regarded as having been made, then I like an adjustment similar to mycroft's latest suggestion. Assuming that the TD determines that South would have made 9 tricks had he known he was in 3NT, E/W as an offending side (East's infraction was picking up his bidding cards prematurely) have their score adjusted to conceding 3NT= by South. Subsequent to East's infraction of picking up his bidding cards, North failed to ensure that the N/E bidding cards were returned to the tray and pushed over to the other side of the screen. This was a wild action by North subsequent to the infraction by East, so N/S do not receive relief for that part of the damage which is deemed to have been self-inflicted, i.e. all of it. This approach concentrates on East's initial infraction rather than North's, but it seems to lead to an equitable ruling in the context of what has happened.

We don't know who picked up their bidding cards first.

And even if we knew, aren't we on thin ice if the ruling depends on that detail?

---

Anyway, I think we have to deem VOID all what happened after N+E decided to pick up their bidding cards. The bidding never finished. Declarer played through in 2N although the bidding had reached 3N when it was abrupted. We can't let NS "keep their bad score", because it was not bridge what happened after the infraction.

What we have is that the bidding started 1D-p-2N-p-3N-p and then cut - no bridge from there with both sides at fault. That is how I would rule. The problem is then what score to assign.

After some thought, I'm going with the artficial score, based on 12A2. When we have no non-offending side, I don't see how we can use normal corrected score, since there is no damage on an innocent side inflicted by an offending side. I don't think we are empowered to use 12B+12C, except for the reference in 12A2 to an artificial score.

So my ruling is:

1) If the board has not yet been played at the other table:
Av- for both sides.

2) If the board has been played at the other table:
Law 86D applies. I'm giving an adjusted score measured in imps.
Say 3N always has 9 tricks, and that's what they got at the other table: That is also where this table was headed, so it will be -3 imps for both sides.
If they were +1370 at the other table: +10/-16 imps respectively for the board (+/- 13 imps, minus 3).

But this is very tough. I think the laws are really letting us down here.

jallerton, on 2014-April-15, 16:27, said:

Those considering assigning average minus to both sides on this deal might do well to read WBFLC minute 2008-10-10#3:

Right. But where is ... "the director elsewhere in the laws empowered to simply award an adjusted score" ... in this case?
I don't see that the statement applies. Our last resort seems to be 12A2, since we can't let them finish the bidding and play the hand in the right contract. That is too late.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2014-April-15, 16:27, said:

Those considering assigning average minus to both sides on this deal might do well to read WBFLC minute 2008-10-10#3:

I'm familiar with the minute. I don't see how you can consider a result to have been obtained when an essential part of the proper procedure was completely skipped. They stopped playing bridge when North and East picked up their bidding cards.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2014-April-15, 18:00, said:

At S’s turn to call, did S elect to bid, double or redouble? No.

At W’s turn to call, did W elect to bid, double or redouble? No.

From WBF2008:

Pass — a call specifying that a player does not, at that turn, elect to bid, double or redouble.

At their respective turns to call neither South nor West made any call at all. Absence of a bid, double or redouble does not constitute a pass.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-April-15, 19:37, said:

I'm familiar with the minute. I don't see how you can consider a result to have been obtained when an essential part of the proper procedure was completely skipped. They stopped playing bridge when North and East picked up their bidding cards.

They played the hand and determined a number of tricks that were taken -- that's a result. An infraction does not mean that everything that happened after it did not occur.

E.g. if a player fails to play a card to a trick, an "essential part of the proper procedure was completely skipped", but we still consider the board to have been played, and the infraction is rectified according to the law about defective tricks.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-April-16, 11:03, said:

They played the hand and determined a number of tricks that were taken -- that's a result. An infraction does not mean that everything that happened after it did not occur.

E.g. if a player fails to play a card to a trick, an "essential part of the proper procedure was completely skipped", but we still consider the board to have been played, and the infraction is rectified according to the law about defective tricks.

No, an infraction means there was an infraction. I didn't, in any case, claim that what happened after the infraction(s) didn't happen. I claim that it doesn't matter what did happen, because it wasn't bridge. The case at hand is a little different to failing to play to a trick.

IMO if you're going to go for a literal interpretation of the law in this case, you had best go for the literal interpretation of the law in every case. I have yet to see a director advocate that, or follow it.

[jallerton]

mfa1010, on 2014-April-15, 18:01, said:

We don't know who picked up their bidding cards first.

And even if we knew, aren't we on thin ice if the ruling depends on that detail?

You're probably right, but in this case we can consider the original infractions of both North and East.

North's infraction of picking up his bidding cards did not cause any damage (within the meaning of the Laws) because N/S's table result was worse than it would have been without the infraction. Hence no rectification is required in respect of this infraction.

East's infraction of picking up his bidding cards did cause damage (within the meaning of the Laws) because E/W's table result was better (and N/S's table result worse) than it would have been without the infraction. Hence the TD needs to assess rectification in respect of this infraction.

Clearly both North and East are equally deserving of PPs!

[mycroft]

The concept of an incomplete auction is a thorny issue, with screens or without. If that could be resolved - what to do when the hand was played but the auction didn't end legitimately - then this would resolve as well.