[Cyberyeti]

I had a nightmare last night, this was it, a suitably weird directorial situation resulted.

The hand in detail is not relevant, I hold 6 spades and no hearts, RHO holds a LOT of hearts.

I open 2♠, as this is just about to hit the table, there is a load of shouting from behind me distracting all 4 players. I place this on the table and turn round, knocking the 2♠ card onto the floor with my sleeve which I don't notice. The other 3 players see 2♥ on the table and the auction proceeds (partner announces "weak") X-P-P-P and the bidding cards are put back in the box. It rapidly becomes apparent when I try to ruff that I'm the only person to think I opened 2♠, the 2♠ card is then found on the floor so I clearly removed it from the bidding box with intent to play it.

What now ?

[ahydra]

As far as I know, result stands. You may have intended to bid 2S but you actually bid 2H; and you can only change an unintended designation until partner has called.

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

 ahydra, on 2012-September-30, 03:43, said:

As far as I know, result stands. You may have intended to bid 2S but you actually bid 2H; and you can only change an unintended designation until partner has called.

ahydra

No I actually bid 2♠ which did hit the table, and was then (illegally probably) modified a short time later. Clearly you have to take this as being true for there to be a problem for the director.

[RMB1]

We take as fact that you bid 2♠

The ruling is easy if this bid was changed to 2♥ (in the sense of Law 25) by knocking away the 2♠ card - apply Law 25B1 - the auction stands with the contract played in 2♥X. But this requires the call of 2♥ to be a call - to have been made - and this requires (EBU bidding regulations) apparent intent. Again, we take it as fact that the 2♠ card was knocked away accidentally and (if any one had observed it) there was no intent apparent.

I rule on the basis that there was no change of call - the knocking away of the 2♠ card was a misleading "gesture" that misled the rest of the table to think you had opened 2♥. The auction stands with the 2♠ bidding card restored to the table, with the contract played in 2♠X. If this result is favourable to you, I adjust to a normal result of opponents bidding over a weak 2♠ opening. We can argue if this is Law 73F - otherwise I will use Law 12A1.

[blackshoe]

I do not see that Law 73 applies at all. I gather that Robin is ruling that "knocking away" the 2♠ card, accidental though it was, is a violation of the EBU bidding box regulation (Orange Book 7B). I don't see that either, though I can understand the desire to say so. Or perhaps I've missed something, or Robin thinks some other law or regulation has been violated. If so, I'd admire to know what it is.

[RMB1]

I can find EBU Orange Book 7 B 7

Quote

At the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the opening lead has been faced and all explanations have been obtained, ...

(It is implicit that the calls should remain in place before that.)

Knocking a bidding card on the floor (even accidentally) is contrary to this regulation.

As previously, I am surprised that you want to rule differently. If the only bid the OP made at that turn was 2♠, I am not going to rule that the opponents are stuck with believing it was 2♥ (during the auction).

[blackshoe]

I don't want to rule differently. I never did. I just wasn't sure there was a legal way to rule as we both wanted to. Now I am sure that there is.

It might be more difficult to rule this way in North America, since the ACBL's regulation lacks the stipulation we're using in this EBU ruling.

[aguahombre]

I will live out my remaining days confident that the exact set of circumstances will remain someone's nightmare and I will never encounter them.

[Cyberyeti]

 aguahombre, on 2012-September-30, 16:38, said:

I will live out my remaining days confident that the exact set of circumstances will remain someone's nightmare and I will never encounter them.

I have seen something vaguely similar, but it was noticed before damage was done, involved a bidding box having previously met some beer and a card stuck to a sleeve.

[aguahombre]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-September-30, 16:51, said:

I have seen something vaguely similar, but it was noticed before damage was done, involved a bidding box having previously met some beer and a card stuck to a sleeve.

Yep, me too. But I don't think about 8 to ten things, all bad, will come together like a perfect storm inside the Bermuda Triangle. And, if they do, maybe I won't be directing

[Trinidad]

I would like to:
- give you an AS based on a normal result when everyone would have seen the 2♠ bid
- give your opponents the table result
- add both scores in %, subtract 100% and subtract the remainder from the guilty party at the other table

I wouldn't go that far in practice, but I would issue a PP to the other table, particularly if the shouting was unfriendly, as it sounds. (If at the other table everybody was having a good time in a very loud way, I would merely give a warning.)

Rik

[iviehoff]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-September-30, 00:38, said:

It rapidly becomes apparent when I try to ruff that I'm the only person to think I opened 2♠, the 2♠ card is then found on the floor so I clearly removed it from the bidding box with intent to play it.

Didn't you ask your partner to put the trumps in the correct location when tabling dummy?

[Cyberyeti]

 iviehoff, on 2012-October-01, 04:24, said:

Didn't you ask your partner to put the trumps in the correct location when tabling dummy?

He didn't have any.

Not that it matters but the noises were non bridge related so there's no other table to penalise re. Trinidad's post.

[blackshoe]

 Trinidad, on 2012-October-01, 03:38, said:

I would like to:
- give you an AS based on a normal result when everyone would have seen the 2♠ bid
- give your opponents the table result
- add both scores in %, subtract 100% and subtract the remainder from the guilty party at the other table

I wouldn't go that far in practice, but I would issue a PP to the other table, particularly if the shouting was unfriendly, as it sounds. (If at the other table everybody was having a good time in a very loud way, I would merely give a warning.)

Rik

I like this ruling, although it occurred to me that if the loud shouting is a ZT violation, which is almost certainly the case, even if they were just having a good time in a loud way, I will have already given them a DP, so adding a PP on top of that seems a bit much, even for me.
I did consider the split score, but it isn't legal, especially the third part (adjusting the score at the other table). As for the split score at this table, it seems to me that's the kind of ruling some club TDs give when they want to keep everybody happy. Still illegal though.

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-01, 06:06, said:

I like this ruling, although it occurred to me that if the loud shouting is a ZT violation, which is almost certainly the case, even if they were just having a good time in a loud way, I will have already given them a DP, so adding a PP on top of that seems a bit much, even for me.
I did consider the split score, but it isn't legal, especially the third part (adjusting the score at the other table).

I am not adjusting. I am penalizing. The size of the PP depends on the damage that the infraction caused.

Quote

As for the split score at this table, it seems to me that's the kind of ruling some club TDs give when they want to keep everybody happy. Still illegal though.

Very illegal, I know. (I did write what I would like to do.)

My decision:
- The table result stands.
- The opponents commiserate with opener (who I deem responsible for his own bidding cards -don't ask me under what law, I will use 74A3 and 74B1).
- Since it seems the people at the adjacent table were not involved in bridge, the most I can do is explain what happened and kindly request them to buy the four bridge players a round.

Rik

[bluejak]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-30, 13:26, said:

I don't want to rule differently. I never did. I just wasn't sure there was a legal way to rule as we both wanted to. Now I am sure that there is.

It might be more difficult to rule this way in North America, since the ACBL's regulation lacks the stipulation we're using in this EBU ruling.

I would rule the same way in the ACBL. I would not find it difficult at all. As I have said previously, even though Ed disagrees, I am confident that custom & practice establishes rules to be followed. Otherwise what is to stop someone in the ACBL, having made a bid, removing the bidding cards deliberately and throwing them on the floor?

[blackshoe]

What ACBL custom or practice will you invoke in making this ruling?

[barmar]

It's normal practice in ACBL to leave the bidding cards in place until the end of the auction. This differs from OB 7B7 in that we don't leave them out until the opening lead, but I don't see how that difference is relevant to this situation.

[bluejak]

Exactly.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2012-October-01, 15:53, said:

It's normal practice in ACBL to leave the bidding cards in place until the end of the auction. This differs from OB 7B7 in that we don't leave them out until the opening lead, but I don't see how that difference is relevant to this situation.

Is it? Then why do I so often see 1NT-(P)-3NT-pick up the bidding cards? Did 3NT end the auction? I suppose "custom and practice" says it did, but then "custom and practice" not only becomes law, it negates existing law. Is that what we want for this game?