[mfa1010]

Does ACBL have its own screen regulations or does it follow WBF rules?

I ask because we had a very weird incident at the Spingold (played with screens).

In a complicated bidding sequence, where RHO had made a bid he explained as "undiscussed", we sent the tray in and it came back only after some time, LHO having made his most likely bid and partner having passed. Now if I was to guess who was more likely to have tanked it would be partner. But it was still unclear and some time could easily have gone explaining the complicatied sequence. I bid again and there we were. I went -300 instead of -450, but dummy was actually a disappointment for the sequence.

But what happened was that LHO, from the other side of the screen, yelled "TD", and when TD was not right there in the room, he raced out to find him. Apparently LHO had bid quickly and my partner had spent all the time thinking. Which I couldn't possibly have known.

When TD returned, I said that it is the guy on my side who is supposed to call the TD in these situations, since tempo issues are so often percieved differently on the two sides of the screen.

But TD just remarked: "I don't see that it makes any difference who calls the director".

Also in another way was the director's handling of the case a disappointment for us. When he gave us his judgment we got the clear impression that he was basing the ruling on "facts" that he hadn't even confronted us with. Apparently LHO had had time to "prepare" the director on their way back to the playing room. Now I don't mind losing a TD case but this handling was bad.

We appealed obviously, but the appeal was not adjudicated because the 4 imps at stake didn't turn out to be decisive in the end.

[wyman]

I had an incident in some US junior trials with screens several years ago, where my LHO/screenmate tanked (and I mean tanked) with a penalty pass of my 2D overcall of 1C. None of us were particularly experienced, and I called the TD after the auction to explain.

He reprimanded me for calling him, told me that screens were there to not pass UI and that there's "NO WAY" that opener could have known that it was his partner with the problem and not me. And he said that if my partner had perceived a tempo issue on his side of the screen, he would have called. So he ruled that there _was no BIT_ and therefore nothing else to rule on. [he did not ask those on the other side of the screen what happened]

For players who had never played with screens before this day, this was a horrible introduction.

I would have expected my ruling in your game and your ruling in mine.

[blackshoe]

ACBL Screen Regulations do not appear to address this question.

[mrdct]

It's sometimes a tournament specific thing, and I'll try to dig up some example regulations later, but most tournaments I've played in either follow the WBF GCC requirements or have a regulation that says that the correct procedure is for attention to be drawn to a break in tempo from the other side of the screen and in circumstances where attention is drawn to a BIT by a screenmate, unless the person who tanked admits it, there is presumed to have been no BIT.

WBF GCC 24.4 (e)-(f) said:

e) When a player takes more than a normal time to make his call, it is not an infraction if he draws attention to the break in tempo. His screenmate, however, shall not do so.
f) If a player on the side of the screen receiving the tray considers there has been a break in tempo and consequently there may be unauthorised information he should, under Law 16B2, call the Director. He may do so at any time before the opening lead is made and the screen opened.
g) Failure to do as (f) provides may persuade the Director it was the partner who drew attention to the break in tempo. If so he may well rule there was no perceived delay and thus no unauthorised information. A delay in passing the tray of up to 20 seconds is not regarded as significant.

[MrAce]

 mfa1010, on 2011-August-05, 09:21, said:

Does ACBL have its own screen regulations or does it follow WBF rules?

I ask because we had a very weird incident at the Spingold (played with screens).

In a complicated bidding sequence, where RHO had made a bid he explained as "undiscussed", we sent the tray in and it came back only after some time, LHO having made his most likely bid and partner having passed. Now if I was to guess who was more likely to have tanked it would be partner. But it was still unclear and some time could easily have gone explaining the complicatied sequence. I bid again and there we were. I went -300 instead of -450, but dummy was actually a disappointment for the sequence.

But what happened was that LHO, from the other side of the screen, yelled "TD", and when TD was not right there in the room, he raced out to find him. Apparently LHO had bid quickly and my partner had spent all the time thinking. Which I couldn't possibly have known.

When TD returned, I said that it is the guy on my side who is supposed to call the TD in these situations, since tempo issues are so often percieved differently on the two sides of the screen.

But TD just remarked: "I don't see that it makes any difference who calls the director".

Also in another way was the director's handling of the case a disappointment for us. When he gave us his judgment we got the clear impression that he was basing the ruling on "facts" that he hadn't even confronted us with. Apparently LHO had had time to "prepare" the director on their way back to the playing room. Now I don't mind losing a TD case but this handling was bad.

We appealed obviously, but the appeal was not adjudicated because the 4 imps at stake didn't turn out to be decisive in the end.

This is from EBL screen procedures course

4- Calling the director. The TD is sometimes needed at the table. The fact that one calls the directoris almost always perceived on the other side, and that is unauthorized information. For example,if a player calls the TD because of an alleged hesitation by his screenmate, and if there will be anoticeable variation in tempo for the tray to pass to the other side, his partner (and the opponent)will inevitably know there was a hesitation and who hesitated. One should never call the TD on ahesitation at one´s own side. If no TD is called the other side will often not notice the variation intempo.

[gordontd]

ACBL screen regs do differ from EBL/WBF ones but not in that respect. In the ACBL it is permitted at the end of the auction for the defending side to compare explanations given on the two sides of the screen. Elsewhere they need to play the board out and ask for a ruling afterwards if it turns out they were given different explanations.

[gordontd]

 MrAce, on 2016-October-19, 05:40, said:

This is from EBL screen procedures course

4- Calling the director. The TD is sometimes needed at the table. The fact that one calls the directoris almost always perceived on the other side, and that is unauthorized information. For example,if a player calls the TD because of an alleged hesitation by his screenmate, and if there will be anoticeable variation in tempo for the tray to pass to the other side, his partner (and the opponent)will inevitably know there was a hesitation and who hesitated. One should never call the TD on ahesitation at one´s own side. If no TD is called the other side will often not notice the variation intempo.

This may be true but is not exactly to the point.

Quote

3.3e) When a player takes more than a normal time to make his call, it is not
an infraction if he draws attention to the break in tempo. His screenmate,
however, shall not do so.  
f) If a player on the side of the screen receiving the tray considers there has
been a break in tempo and consequently there may be unauthorised
information he should, under Law 16B2, call the Director. He may do so at
any time before the opening lead is made and the screen opened.
g) Failure to do as (f) provides may persuade the Director it was the partner
who drew attention to the break in tempo. If so he may well rule there was
no perceived delay and thus no unauthorised information. A delay in passing
the tray of up to 20 seconds is not regarded as significant.

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2016-October-19, 07:01, said:

This may be true but is not exactly to the point.

Why isn't that to the point? It just restates what the regulation (which mrdct already quoted when the thread was current) says: "His screenmate, however, shall not [call the TD]."

So LHO was incorrect in calling the TD, and the TD was wrong to say it doesn't matter.

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2016-October-19, 08:37, said:

Why isn't that to the point? It just restates what the regulation (which mrdct already quoted when the thread was current) says: "His screenmate, however, shall not [call the TD]."

So LHO was incorrect in calling the TD, and the TD was wrong to say it doesn't matter.

I hadn't realised it wasn't a current thread, apart from the post from today to which I was replying. The regulation that MrAce quoted wasn't to the point because it was talking about a different situation. So I quoted the one that was about this situation.

[MrAce]

 gordontd, on 2016-October-19, 08:52, said:

I hadn't realised it wasn't a current thread, apart from the post from today to which I was replying. The regulation that MrAce quoted wasn't to the point because it was talking about a different situation. So I quoted the one that was about this situation.

 mfa1010, on 2011-August-05, 09:21, said:

But what happened was that LHO, from the other side of the screen, yelled "TD", and when TD was not right there in the room, he raced out to find him. Apparently LHO had bid quickly and my partner had spent all the time thinking. Which I couldn't possibly have known.

When TD returned, I said that it is the guy on my side who is supposed to call the TD in these situations, since tempo issues are so often percieved differently on the two sides of the screen.
But TD just remarked: "I don't see that it makes any difference who calls the director".

 MrAce, on 2016-October-19, 05:40, said:

This is from EBL screen procedures course

4- Calling the director. The TD is sometimes needed at the table. The fact that one calls the directoris almost always perceived on the other side, and that is unauthorized information. For example,if a player calls the TD because of an alleged hesitation by his screenmate, and if there will be anoticeable variation in tempo for the tray to pass to the other side, his partner (and the opponent)will inevitably know there was a hesitation and who hesitated. One should never call the TD on ahesitation at one´s own side. If no TD is called the other side will often not notice the variation intempo.

Sorry but Barry is not the only one who is having hard time to understand you, Gordon.