[quantumed]

I'll describe a case, can you please give your input on how you would rule, and what law the ruling is based on, if there is any such law at all?

In a tournament, bidding pads were used due to a shortage of bidding boxes. Before auction started the North players marked the dealer and vul on the pad, then the board was left aside. On this particular board East was the rightful dealer. However, North accidentally marked himself as dealer instead, and opened 1D in "first seat". This forced EW into a competitive auction where they had a misunderstanding and finished in a bad contract.

The EW players noticed the irregularity at the end of the game, and asked for a ruling because they felt damaged due to the irregularity on North's part. The reason cited was that the out-of-turn opening forced them into a more difficult competitive auction instead of a straighforward uncontested one (a simple 1NT sequence).

The only Law that i find semi-relevant is Law 7A "when a board is to be played it is placed in the centre of the table until play is completed". But notice in this case the bidding pad was used, in which case complying to 7A would somewhat inconvenience players in writing on the pad. Hence the practice of leaving board aside, while following what's on the pad, is somewhat understandable.

So what is your ruling?

[TylerE]

I think EW are out of luck here, under law 29A:

Quote

Following a call out of rotation, offender's LHO may elect to call, thereby forfeiting the right to penalize.

Once E fails to realize the out-of-turn opening immediatly that ship has sailed.

[NickRW]

I think that, if there was a tournament regulation stating that it was North's responsibility to write the dealer and vul on the pad - and that further EW had no responsibility to check this, then I guess EW have a case. In the absence of that, I think that East condoned the bid out of turn and thus EW have no case.

Nick

[jdonn]

I think it's too simplistic to just treat this as a bid out of turn, it's an unusual situation. But surely common sense dictates that if north is going to write the dealer and vul on a pad before play, east or west should carefully check it before playing each board. So I think they were lazy to the point of negligence and then it reverts back to 29A.

[RMB1]

I would rule the board fouled under Law 87A. Since there are no other scores to compare with I would award an artificial adjusted score.

NickRW, on Jul 21 2009, 06:28 PM, said:

I think that, if there was a tournament regulation stating that it was North's responsibility to write the dealer and vul on the pad - and that further EW had no responsibility to check this, then I guess EW have a case.

If this is the case or if North-South were stationary and East-West were moving (Law 7D) then I would award AVE-/AVE+. Otherwise I would award AVE=.

Robin

[Echognome]

I would rule it as bid out-of-turn accepted and thus no adjustment to the table result.

The question to me is whether to give North a procedural penalty.

[FrancesHinden]

I agree with Robin, I think the Board has been fouled. Whose fault that is depends on the regulations.

[bluejak]

May I remind opening posters that they are asked to state the country that the ruling is from. It often affects rulings.

Ok, let's assume it is Australia, which is possible since there are bidding pads there. When I was there the rules were that the board was left on the table, and whatever was written on the pad as to dealer and vulnerability, whether right or wrong, was irrelevant. Therefore there was a bid out of turn which was condoned.

Of course both sides are at fault because they allowed the board to be off the table. Note that it is not a fouled board, because the regulations say it is not.

Apparently the reason for the rules is that there used to be a time when what was written on the pad was relevant. But it had changed, or at least it had in tournaments. Maybe not in clubs.

So, to be able to give advice, we need to know:

Which country? What do the regulations say about writing dealer/vulnerability on the bidding pads?

[quantumed]

To bluejak,

The country is Singapore, where rules are silent on the issue of written bidding.

In fact, one local TD did quote the Australian rule saying that what's written on the pad is irrelevant, and board is to be left at the middle of table. I'm not sure if he's eligible to use other country's rule as reference.

Thanks.

[bluejak]

It is more difficult if there is no local regulation. To tell the truth, we have had other tricky rulings from Singapore in this forum, and in some cases those seem to have been caused by lack of regulation. It would be reasonable for Singapore to adopt another country's regulations if they do not want the trouble of making their own. A statement such as "ABF regulations apply for written bidding" would save much grief! ABF is the Australian Bridge Federation.

Well, if there are no regulations, then custom & practice comes into effect. If normal is to rely on the bidding pad and it is normal to put the board on one side, then I think E/W have a case: they may have been damaged by the infraction of writing the wrong thing on the bidding pad. So I might adjust.

[jmcw]

jdonn, on Jul 21 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

So I think they were lazy to the point of negligence and then it reverts back to 29A.

Seems a bit harsh on poor old North. What were E/W and S doing when this was going on? Did the director not check for accuracy...now that seems lazy to me!. I hold N blameless so result stands.

[Rossoneri]

jmcw, on Jul 25 2009, 03:33 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 21 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

So I think they were lazy to the point of negligence and then it reverts back to 29A.

Seems a bit harsh on poor old North. What were E/W and S doing when this was going on? Did the director not check for accuracy...now that seems lazy to me!. I hold N blameless so result stands.

This was the last board played at the table, and as this table was the last to be in play at the end of a league match of 28 boards, it was not discovered until everyone had left and were on their way home. In fact, I was on my way home already and did not receive any knowledge of this incident until a few days later when a complaint email was forwarded to me. Nonetheless, this issue was first raised up about 15 minutes after I left and so was within the correction period of 30 minutes after the last board which is stipulated in SCBA's General Conditions of Contest.

The email was sent to myself and the other senior TDs. I agreed with the other reply. "It may be North-South's responsibility for writing the information on the bidding pad, but it is also East-West's responsibility to check that it is correct, the same for writing of score. East-West is as much, if not more, at fault for the error."

I do agree that the lack of regulations is rather frustrating. The ruling given was also wrong, as one of the regular league directors was called instead. (She was playing and thus I was asked to direct this session.) The ruling given related to Law 7 about the placement of the board on the table, which seems rather irrelevant to me. I also disagree with the quoting of the Australian Laws as SCBA has not elected to use any of the Australian Laws!