[paulg]

This occurred in the Scottish National League, an event played to the WBF Screen Regulations (PDF).

The following auction occurred:

---

After passing 2♥, East removed his cards from the bidding tray as North did too. So when North passed the tray through to South and West, they thought that 2♦ had been passed out and removed their bidding cards from the tray.

West led and North put his hand down as dummy. When told to put the diamonds on the right hand side, it became obvious that the two sides of the screen had different ideas about which suit was trumps.

The Director took East and North outside to shoot them, but what ruling(s) would have been reasonable. If relevant it is highly probable that South would have bid 3♥ if he'd known about his partner's bid and, even if he didn't, then West would certainly have not let them play in 2♥.

[chrism]

The board is now unplayable with both sides at fault. -3 IMPs to both sides, score the match asymmetrically, assuming that the league is scored by something like VPs - in a head-to-head KO, just cancel the board, with or without a substitute board depending on Conditions of Contest.

[pran]

paulg, on 2014-November-23, 11:25, said:

This occurred in the Scottish National League, an event played to the WBF Screen Regulations (PDF).

The following auction occurred:

---

After passing 2♥, East removed his cards from the bidding tray as North did too. So when North passed the tray through to South and West, they thought that 2♦ had been passed out and removed their bidding cards from the tray.

West led and North put his hand down as dummy. When told to put the diamonds on the right hand side, it became obvious that the two sides of the screen had different ideas about which suit was trumps.

The Director took East and North outside to shoot them, but what ruling(s) would have been reasonable. If relevant it is highly probable that South would have bid 3♥ if he'd known about his partner's bid and, even if he didn't, then West would certainly have not let them play in 2♥.

Unless I am terribly wrong all four players are guilty of having committed a fatal error which in my opinion actually makes the Board unplayable:

The tray never contained all three passes that conclude an auction. South and West should not have accepted the tray coming back without two more call cards added, and North and East should not have removed their last call cards before North pushed the tray.

I suggest a considerable penalty (at least 1VP?) to each side. (I consider South and West as much to blame as North and East.)

[paulg]

pran, on 2014-November-23, 13:03, said:

Unless I am terribly wrong all four players are guilty of having committed a fatal error which in my opinion actually makes the Board unplayable:

The tray never contained all three passes that conclude an auction. South and West should not have accepted the tray coming back without two more call cards added, and North and East should not have removed their last call cards before North pushed the tray.

I suggest a considerable penalty (at least 1VP?) to each side. (I consider South and West as much to blame as North and East.)

I do consider South and West to be blameless. When the tray comes back with all the North and East cards removed, as per the WBFLC minute they are considered to have passed. However this is pretty irrelevant when it comes to penalising the teams.

[blackshoe]

I agree that the board is rendered unplayable. I would therefore cancel the board (Law 82B2) and award an adjusted score (Law 82B1, Law 12A2, Law 12C2). Both sides are, IMO, directly at fault, so both get Average Minus, or -3IMPs (Law 12C2{b}). If the TO has put in place a regulation which varies this, I would follow the regulation (Law 86A). Law 86D may apply, but as we're not told what happened at the other table, it's not possible to rule on that question.

According to the screen regs, all four players are entitled to see the entire auction before the bidding cards are picked up. This provision, as worded, does not suggest a PP, but I agree with Sven — at this level of play, all four players should know better. I would give a penalty of perhaps 2 VPs to each side.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-23, 15:02, said:

I agree that the board is rendered unplayable. I would therefore cancel the board (Law 82B2) and award an adjusted score (Law 82B1, Law 12A2, Law 12C2). Both sides are, IMO, directly at fault, so both get Average Minus, or -3IMPs (Law 12C2{b}). If the TO has put in place a regulation which varies this, I would follow the regulation (Law 86A). Law 86D may apply, but as we're not told what happened at the other table, it's not possible to rule on that question.

According to the screen regs, all four players are entitled to see the entire auction before the bidding cards are picked up. This provision, as worded, does not suggest a PP, but I agree with Sven — at this level of play, all four players should know better. I would give a penalty of perhaps 2 VPs to each side.

(Coloured by me)
You beat me to it, I was going to quote exactly that part of the WBF screen regulation!

[pran]

paulg, on 2014-November-23, 14:44, said:

I do consider South and West to be blameless. When the tray comes back with all the North and East cards removed, as per the WBFLC minute they are considered to have passed. However this is pretty irrelevant when it comes to penalising the teams.

The WBFLC minute referred to here is not relevant when playing with screens.

[paulg]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-23, 15:02, said:

According to the screen regs, all four players are entitled to see the entire auction before the bidding cards are picked up. This provision, as worded, does not suggest a PP, but I agree with Sven — at this level of play, all four players should know better. I would give a penalty of perhaps 2 VPs to each side.

In practice, no-one ever does this. This is why I feel that South and West are blameless, at least practically speaking if not in law. I should add that both South and West were in favour of severe penalties for their respective partners.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-23, 15:02, said:

According to the screen regs, all four players are entitled to see the entire auction before the bidding cards are picked up. This provision, as worded, does not suggest a PP, but I agree with Sven — at this level of play, all four players should know better. I would give a penalty of perhaps 2 VPs to each side.

paulg, on 2014-November-23, 16:06, said:

In practice, no-one ever does this.

Then they had better begin doing it.

paulg, on 2014-November-23, 16:06, said:

This is why I feel that South and West are blameless, at least practically speaking if not in law.

A common excuse from rule-breakers, but I see no reason why such excuses should be accepted when the violation of a rule leads to damage like here.
South and West were certainly not blameless, they should have reacted when they were denied the possibility to see the entire auction.

[Vampyr]

paulg, on 2014-November-23, 16:06, said:

In practice, no-one ever does this.

True, and I find this really annoying. I have, when I needed to review the bidding or had questions, requested that the cards be restored to the tray.

[blackshoe]

paulg, on 2014-November-23, 16:06, said:

In practice, no-one ever does this. This is why I feel that South and West are blameless, at least practically speaking if not in law. I should add that both South and West were in favour of severe penalties for their respective partners.

Bridge speaks of contestants in this context. The contestant here is the team. So it's the team that gets the penalty.

I do not think "no one ever does this" is a justification for not following the rules. And it certainly doesn't justify calling South and West "blameless".

[gnasher]

Is this an international trial as well as a national league? If so, I rule that neither East nor North will be invited to play for Scotland.

By the way, I've just had a look at the CoC for this event. Some of the wording seems rather familiar

[paulg]

gnasher, on 2014-November-23, 18:26, said:

Is this an international trial as well as a national league? If so, I rule that neither East nor North will be invited to play for Scotland.

Similar to the English Premier League, the winner of the National League is invited to represent Scotland in the Camrose Trophy. Neither won, but East has been selected to supplement the team of four that won the event.

gnasher, on 2014-November-23, 18:26, said:

By the way, I've just had a look at the CoC for this event. Some of the wording seems rather familiar

I'll add an acknowledgement to next season's CoCs as it was with permission from your predecessor. I do provide suggestions to both the English and Scottish organisers of their respective leagues, it's just that the Scots seem to take most of them wholesale.

The changes I'd make to the English Premier League include:

• compulsory use of the WBF System Card
• pre-submission of all cards at least seven days before the event
• require Brown Sticker forms for Brown Sticker conventions even when they are permitted at EBU Level 4

[VixTD]

pran, on 2014-November-23, 13:03, said:

I suggest a considerable penalty (at least 1VP?) to each side. (I consider South and West as much to blame as North and East.)

blackshoe, on 2014-November-23, 15:02, said:

I would give a penalty of perhaps 2 VPs to each side.

Both sides have committed an infraction that caused a board to be fouled. It should be scored as average minus to both sides. If an additional penalty is considered appropriate, I would have thought 0.5 VP would be sufficient, as it was a matter of carelessness or inattention rather than maliciousness. (I'm assuming this is a first offence of this kind.)

[pran]

VixTD, on 2014-November-24, 08:54, said:

Both sides have committed an infraction that caused a board to be fouled. It should be scored as average minus to both sides. If an additional penalty is considered appropriate, I would have thought 0.5 VP would be sufficient, as it was a matter of carelessness or inattention rather than maliciousness. (I'm assuming this is a first offence of this kind.)

It must have been a premeditated violation of the screen regulation, how much more do you want?
(If it was habitual carelessness then even so much worse!)

[blackshoe]

Okay, maybe 2 VPs is too harsh. I see that the White Book §8.12.3 suggests the "standard" penalty should be 0.5 VP. Does this rate more than a standard penalty?

To me, "premeditated" implies that the perpetrators thought "I know I'm not supposed to pick up my cards now, but I'm going to do it anyway." I doubt that thought, or anything like it, went through either player's mind at the time or, for that matter, before the time of the infraction(s). So I agree with Vix; it was carelessness.

Okay, standard penalty. Include a stern warning not to do it again.

[paulg]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-24, 10:20, said:

Okay, maybe 2 VPs is too harsh. I see that the White Book §8.12.3 suggests the "standard" penalty should be 0.5 VP. Does this rate more than a standard penalty?

To me, "premeditated" implies that the perpetrators thought "I know I'm not supposed to pick up my cards now, but I'm going to do it anyway." I doubt that thought, or anything like it, went through either player's mind at the time or, for that matter, before the time of the infraction(s). So I agree with Vix; it was carelessness.

Okay, standard penalty. Include a stern warning not to do it again.

This is my view too.

[wired]

"The Director took East and North outside to shoot them,"

Tar and feather them, THEN shoot them.

[nige1]

pran, on 2014-November-23, 13:03, said:

I suggest a considerable penalty (at least 1VP?) to each side.

blackshoe, on 2014-November-23, 15:02, said:

I would give a penalty of perhaps 2 VPs to each side.

paulg, on 2014-November-23, 11:25, said:

The Director took East and North outside to shoot them.

wired, on 2014-November-24, 16:12, said:

Tar and feather them, THEN shoot them.

The selection committee imposed a more cruel and unusual punishment

paulg, on 2014-November-24, 02:16, said:

East has been selected to supplement the team of four that won the event [to represent Scotland in the Camrose Trophy]

[blackshoe]

wired, on 2014-November-24, 16:12, said:

"The Director took East and North outside to shoot them,"

Tar and feather them, THEN shoot them.

You left out the drawing and quartering part.