[Fluffy]

What is the correct ruling when one side inadvertely bids without noticing that the bidding started at the other side of the screen, and thus, makes an insufficent bid that crosses to the other side?

[gordontd]

Fluffy, on 2017-January-30, 17:32, said:

What is the correct ruling when one side inadvertely bids without noticing that the bidding started at the other side of the screen, and thus, makes an insufficent bid that crosses to the other side?

If the tray is passed through by the insufficient bidder's screenmate, then the call has been accepted and can't be corrected. Otherwise the normal laws apply.

[axman]

gordontd, on 2017-January-31, 01:57, said:

If the tray is passed through by the insufficient bidder's screenmate, then the call has been accepted and can't be corrected. Otherwise the normal laws apply.

This is an interesting view considering L80B2e.

Consider 2S-P//P-1H**

//= screen
**= board pushed by RHO condoning 1H

Law 27A.1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO. It is accepted if that player calls.

taking note that it is LHO that treats IB legal

Thus suggesting that the screen regulation that condones an IB is contrary to 27A1:

L80B2(e) 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).

[mycroft]

I think that L80B2e's *example* doesn't apply, yes, but it can be a separate "special condition". I don't think it's any more in violation of the laws than "a face up OLOOT may not be accepted, and must be retracted if caught before the screen goes up." Again, the person on the other side of the screen would have the options, but we're removing those options to make a more pure game because we can without damage.

I think the logic here is that, by pushing the tray across, somebody on the NOS has accepted the IB. Normally it's LHO, but without screens, there's no sane way for RHO to accept, and with screens, there's no reasonable way for LHO to accept it without passing the UI from the retracted IB we're trying to avoid with the screens.

And doing anything else, it seems to me, puts E-W in a different position than N-S. If South makes the IB, LHO gets to point it out, get it all cleaned up, without the other side of the screen being aware (or at least not knowing what the old call was). If West makes the IB, however, it has to always go to the other side of the screen for LHO to determine if it is acceptable, and now partner gets to/has to know what it is, and gets put under much more onerous UI/lead restrictions issues than N/S do when they make this kind of mistake.

That is, I guess, unless every second session the screen gets rotated 90 degrees, and N/S have the problems.

[axman]

mycroft, on 2017-January-31, 14:58, said:

I think that L80B2e's *example* doesn't apply, yes, but it can be a separate "special condition". I don't think it's any more in violation of the laws than "a face up OLOOT may not be accepted, and must be retracted if caught before the screen goes up." Again, the person on the other side of the screen would have the options, but we're removing those options to make a more pure game because we can without damage.

I think the logic here is that, by pushing the tray across, somebody on the NOS has accepted the IB. Normally it's LHO, but without screens, there's no sane way for RHO to accept, and with screens, there's no reasonable way for LHO to accept it without passing the UI from the retracted IB we're trying to avoid with the screens.

And doing anything else, it seems to me, puts E-W in a different position than N-S. If South makes the IB, LHO gets to point it out, get it all cleaned up, without the other side of the screen being aware (or at least not knowing what the old call was). If West makes the IB, however, it has to always go to the other side of the screen for LHO to determine if it is acceptable, and now partner gets to/has to know what it is, and gets put under much more onerous UI/lead restrictions issues than N/S do when they make this kind of mistake.

That is, I guess, unless every second session the screen gets rotated 90 degrees, and N/S have the problems.

I was pointing out that the focus of 80B2e was regulations must first conform to the law; And that Gordon's screen regulation (that the pusher that pushes thereby condones) can conflict with law and thus be outside the power to regulate.

This post has been edited by axman: 2017-February-01, 12:30

[barmar]

axman, on 2017-February-01, 12:28, said:

I was pointing out that the focus of 80B2e was regulations must first conform to the law; And that Gordon's screen regulation (that the pusher that pushes thereby condones) can conflict with law and thus be outside the power to regulate.

Right. The screen regulation that conforms to 80B2e is the one that says that an IB can be corrected without any consequences if it's noticed before the board is pushed to the other side. But if it is pushed, the normal Laws apply.

[mycroft]

Possibly, possibly. Having said that, is it not patently unfair to E/W that, just because of which direction they sit (and let's pretend this is a pairs game and they got no choice, or that their opponent has the same problems at the other table) that their IBs that "don't get caught", or "aren't bothered to be checked", or even "I noticed but I like penalties" by the N/S player (who by regulation is the tray pusher) get penalized, but the N/S bids don't?

[axman]

barmar, on 2017-February-01, 14:27, said:

Right. The screen regulation that conforms to 80B2e is the one that says that an IB can be corrected without any consequences if it's noticed before the board is pushed to the other side. But if it is pushed, the normal Laws apply.

I doubt that is the effect. My reading suggests that if the irregularity has been corrected prior to 'pushing the board' then it may (as provided by regulation) be corrected without penalty.

[barmar]

axman, on 2017-February-02, 11:14, said:

I doubt that is the effect. My reading suggests that if the irregularity has been corrected prior to 'pushing the board' then it may (as provided by regulation) be corrected without penalty.

Isn't that what I said?

[gordontd]

axman, on 2017-February-01, 12:28, said:

I was pointing out that the focus of 80B2e was regulations must first conform to the law; And that Gordon's screen regulation (that the pusher that pushes thereby condones) can conflict with law and thus be outside the power to regulate.

Not my regulation - it's that of the WBF & EBL among others.

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2017-February-03, 09:21, said:

Not my regulation - it's that of the WBF & EBL among others.

Don't take it personally. He was just citing you as the one who brought it up, not its author.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2017-February-03, 09:38, said:

Don't take it personally. He was just citing you as the one who brought it up, not its author.

Possibly, but maybe not. It wasn't so much that I took it personally as that I was pointing out that it had a good legal pedigree, having come from the WBF.

[axman]

barmar, on 2017-February-02, 17:18, said:

Isn't that what I said?

What you said was that the 'noticing' conveys the power to condone without restriction in time; including, say, after the pushing the board, partner not condoning, etc. and, what I said was that the correction needed to occur without the other side of the screen knowing there had been an IB.

Notably, 80B2e provides for conditions in accordance with these laws and additionally with (distinguished by 'together with') special conditions not (necessarily) in accordance with these laws. On its face, special conditions for bidding and play conveys the power to create unfettered regulations not in accordance with law.

As 80B2e provides for special conditions for bidding and play, the restriction (not in conflict with law) of 80B2f doesn't attach. And permitting these two alternative universes to exist simultaneously is problematic as demonstrated by the push the board regulation example where RHO condones as legal the IB via pushing the board across the screen. Now, how is LHO to know that his partner has condoned the IB while 27A grants him sole him power to condone? Noting that RHO may well have pushed when being unaware of the IB at the time. And, what is the remedy for damage to the OS when LHO does not condone, the board is returned to correct, and it then is learned that the call had already been condoned (as now, the NOS has UI that LHO did not want to condone)?

Note that a close reading of 80B2e requires that the parentheses conveys an example regulation that is empowered by 80B2e (rather than a requirement of law). In particular 'provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied' is not a specification that screen regulations must satisfy because of law, but a sample regulation.

[barmar]

axman, on 2017-February-04, 10:27, said:

What you said was that the 'noticing' conveys the power to condone without restriction in time; including, say, after the pushing the board, partner not condoning, etc. and, what I said was that the correction needed to occur without the other side of the screen knowing there had been an IB.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious that I meant "noticed and corrected". Did you really think I meant that you notice the IB, allow the board to be pushed, and then want to be able to correct it? How would anyone even know that you noticed it before the push if you didn't try to correct it at the time?