[Vampyr]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-July-03, 15:14, said:

p.s. the EBU screen regulations are slightly different - if an IB is passed under the screen, the other side are supposed to call the TD and it still gets rectified without penalty - now there are two OS.

According to L27A1, offender's LHO has the option to accept an insufficient bid. So I think that this EBU regulation is illegal.

[mrdct]

Screen regulations in all jurisdictions modify several of the laws which were written with face-to-face bridge in mind. Most screen regulations more-or-less conform to the WBF Screen Regulations which are set out in Clause 25 of the WBF General Condiitons of Contest. Quite explictly under GCC25.4(a)(ii) "if a player infringes the law and, inadvertently (otherwise Law 23 may apply), the irregularity is passed through the screen by his screenmate the latter has accepted the action on behalf of his side in situations where the laws permit LHO to accept it".

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-06, 22:05, said:

According to L27A1, offender's LHO has the option to accept an insufficient bid. So I think that this EBU regulation is illegal.

Law 80B2E said:

to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions (as, for example, play with screens – provisions for rectification of actions not
transmitted across the screen may be varied).

[Vampyr]

mrdct, on 2011-July-06, 23:49, said:

"if a player infringes the law and, inadvertently (otherwise Law 23 may apply), the irregularity is passed through the screen by his screenmate the latter has accepted the action on behalf of his side in situations where the laws permit LHO to accept it".

The EBU regulation is directly in contravention of this WBF regulation (which, by the way, may also be illegal, since it denies LHO's right to choose to accept the irregularity).

Quote

(provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied).

The EBU seem to not only deny LHO's right to choose to accept an IB, but also to forbid him to accept it inadvertantly. This cannot be right.

[bluejak]

I think you should decide what it is that you are trying to do, Stef.

If you are trying to say that two sets of regulations disagree, well strike me pink and beat me on the head with a fried wombat: try comparing the ACBL and ABF system regulations. You say "directly in contravention" but surely you just mean different?

If you are trying to say that some of these regulations are illegal, well I think you are going to get nowhere fast. In effect TOs will make regulations for screens and cite Law 80B2E and even if you think they are not really covered, no-one is going to do anything about it.

If you are trying to say the EBU [or WBF] should have different regulations, try taking it to Changing Laws & Regulations please, but I doubt there is much point myself. People may agree or disagree, but I doubt anything constructive will come of it.