[axman]

 mycroft, on 2014-April-17, 10:16, said:

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.

Considering 'premature play' by all 'during the auction' at some point exposed cards impose enforced passes [L24] at which point you have achieved a complete auction.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2014-April-16, 14:16, said:

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.

Why is playing after an incomplete auction "not bridge", but playing after a defective trick is "bridge". In both cases an essential part of the proper procedure was completely skipped. What makes the first so much worse that the play is irrelevant?

When I first read the OP, my feeling was that I would rule result stands. In effect, West (illegally) changed his bid from 3NT to Pass, and South condoned it by passing after this. They should have called the TD, but they didn't, and thus forfeit any rights to rectification.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2014-April-17, 14:44, said:

Why is playing after an incomplete auction "not bridge", but playing after a defective trick is "bridge". In both cases an essential part of the proper procedure was completely skipped. What makes the first so much worse that the play is irrelevant?

When I first read the OP, my feeling was that I would rule result stands. In effect, West (illegally) changed his bid from 3NT to Pass, and South condoned it by passing after this. They should have called the TD, but they didn't, and thus forfeit any rights to rectification.

You're arguing that all irregularities have the same weight. That's nonsense.

West or South should have called the TD. But to claim that "in effect West (illegally) changed his bid" and "South condoned it" is more nonsense. In effect, all West and South did was to assume (incorrectly, I'll admit) that their partners on the other side of the screen did not have their heads up their ass.

[barmar]

Sorry, I got my directions wrong. I meant North and East changed their bids. North put down the 3NT, East put down Pass, then they each picked up their bidding cards before passing the tray. That changed North's 3NT to a Pass, and East condoned it.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2014-April-19, 20:25, said:

Sorry, I got my directions wrong. I meant North and East changed their bids. North put down the 3NT, East put down Pass, then they each picked up their bidding cards before passing the tray. That changed North's 3NT to a Pass, and East condoned it.

Then the contract was 2NT, not three, and South made his contract, and EW can eat it. But I would give both sides a significant PP, because I do not want people picking up their damn bidding cards instead of passing.

But this interpretation depends on ruling that picking up bidding cards before there have been three actual passes constitutes a pass, and I don't see a basis in law for it.

[dan_ehh]

Thank you all for your answers. I think this is a tough case because the laws do not provide a specific answer, and you have to be imaginative.

My personal opinion is that 12A2 applies because the "no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board" criterion applies - it's true that we know the actual play, but I think this does not count as "normal play" because declarer is entitled to know what contract he is playing. I also think the auction was incomplete therefore there's no actual contract.
Those who rule "table result stands" must first explain what is the table result, and why. Jallerton did a nice job and I would be inclined to agree with 2NT= for NS (and 3NT= for EW using law 23), but I understand this is not possible due to the regulations not permitting a change of call using 25B (and anyway not without the TD's supervision).
Granted, declarer's partner was to blame for the infraction, but so was East - they are both equally responsible, as they both failed to transmit the auction to the other side - North by pushing the tray, East by not stopping him.

Seeing as both sides are at fault, I would rule -3 to both, and maybe also a PP (but that might be overkill).

I don't think ruling 3NT-1 to NS and 3NT= to EW is correct because North and East are equally at fault for the infraction which caused declarer not to be aware of the 3NT bid. If you decide to give an assigned score of 3NT, supposedly following the philosophy of "a result as close as possible to what would have happened without the infraction", then obviously this would be 3NT= for both (I intentionally did not provide the actual cards, as this is a law only problem).