[bluejak]

---

Declarer was in 6♦ from the South hand, playing Swiss Teams. Sometime around when dummy appeared, he and others at the table realised that something was known about the hand because West at the next table had been vociferous. While I do not know exactly what was said apparently it made it clear to South [and East/West] that the ♦Q was in the East hand. This simplified the play!

In fact, declarer called the TD and explained his difficulty before the play. She suggested playing the hand out and then they would look at it. Note the West player at the next table was in neither of the two teams at the table.

To be honest, it was not this TD's finest hour. She tried one ruling, but the players objected. She then consulted and then tried another ruling. Originally one side was going to appeal, but after a discussion between the two teams, they went to the TD and asked her to change her ruling under Law 82C. The two teams had agreed on a ruling and she accepted their agreed ruling!

But the question is simple: what do you consider the correct ruling?

[TimG]

1) Single dummy, isn't the correct play in trumps to cash the King and then finesse? (Without real careful analysis, it seems like after two round of trumps, declarer should cash Queen of Hearts and Ace of Hearts in case the suit is 4-1 with the short heart in the same hand as the doubleton trump. But, let's just assume that all there is to the play is picking up trumps.) This seems like the normal play and I'd assign that result.

2) Second choice would be to assign 6D making to NS and 6D down one to EW with the reasoning that it was "at all probable" that declarer would play trumps incorrectly.

In either case, the vociferous west should incur a procedural penalty. In the second case, I'd like to penalize the offender however many VPs makes the sheet balance -- that is if case two results in 4 "extra" VPs, I'd penalize the offender 4 VPs.

I have no law reference, but these seem like the two reasonable options to me.

Edit: I should have said "I'd like to penalize the offender enough VP to make the sheet balance". I realize there is probably some standard penalty amount, but suspect it is too small to act as much of a deterrent.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-January-16, 19:07, said:

Declarer was in 6♦ from the South hand, playing Swiss Teams. Sometime around when dummy appeared, he and others at the table realised that something was known about the hand because West at the next table had been vociferous. While I do not know exactly what was said apparently it made it clear to South [and East/West] that the ♦Q was in the East hand. This simplified the play!

East hadn't realized this before then?

[blackshoe]

Who do you think is the offender here?

[blackshoe]

Quote

She [the TD] suggested playing the hand out and then they would look at it.

So far, so good. The applicable law, it seems to me, is 16C2{c}, via 16C3. I'm assuming here that there is no evidence that the remarks from another table affected the bidding. Anyway, 16C2{c} tells the TD to let the hand be played, and then consider whether to adjust the score if she judges the UI affected the play. So we need to know how the play went, and we need to know how it might have gone if there had been no UI. The table TD presumably had that information — well, the first bit anyway. For the second bit, she should have consulted/polled before her initial ruling.

"At all probable" doesn't apply in England. We should be looking at weighted scores. As for a VP penalty for West, I agree, but the size of the penalty should not have anything to do with the score adjustment.

If declarer didn't use the UI in the play, score stands. But that presumably didn't happen.

First cut at a weighted score: 50% of 6♦ making and 50% of 6♦-1. I wouldn't be surprised if some suggest some other weighting.

[gordontd]

It's too late for a substitute player, but a substitute board might well be the solution. Failing that, an artificial adjusted score seems appropriate.

L16C was one that changed in the last revision, and while it improved in some respects the wording is very poor in others. It could certainly be tightened up.

[Cyberyeti]

Certainly I would penalise the vociferous player at the other table.

Had the board previously been played at the other table in the teams match ? if not, definitely substitute the board.

I would suggest substituting the board if a normal result had been attained at the other table, the only difficulty is if something really stupid has happened there.

[campboy]

I think it is right to award an adjusted score since the information "may" have affected the result (16C2c), even though it probably didn't. The objectives of adjusting (12B1) are to give redress to a NOS and to take away any advantage gained by an OS, and the scores need not balance (12C1f). Since both sides are non-offending I don't think the objectives can be served by reducing N/S's score, so I would only consider adjusting for E/W. Possibly E/W get 50% of 6D=, 50% of 6D-1 in a 12C1c jurisdiction, but 100% of 6D-1 in a 12c1e jurisdiction.

[bluejak]

I do not know whether the board had already been played at the other table, but I think it had. While the board was due to be played seventh of an eight board match the other table played very fast and played this board early since they ran out of available boards to play. My guess would be they played it fourth.

The contract in the other room was 4♥. Since this was technically a bad slam [finesse at best] but making on the most normal play it is difficult to say what is a "normal" result.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2011-January-17, 06:55, said:

I do not know whether the board had already been played at the other table, but I think it had. While the board was due to be played seventh of an eight board match the other table played very fast and played this board early since they ran out of available boards to play. My guess would be they played it fourth.

The contract in the other room was 4♥. Since this was technically a bad slam [finesse at best] but making on the most normal play it is difficult to say what is a "normal" result.

When I said a normal result, I meant any normal result ie not redoubled in a cue bid which would dwarf whether the slam made or went off.

I'm not sure whether the laws support me, but I think there must be a chance here that even subconsciously the foreknowledge might have influenced the auction, so the board should be voided. I'm not sure whether in that case you issue a replacement or treat both sides as non offending, award them both +3 IMPS and penalise the guy at the other table.

[bluejak]

At the end of the hand the TD said she felt that normal play had been impossible so she would give both sides Ave+. Not unnaturally, N/S objected, saying they had got to a reasonable slam which they were clearly going to make since the best percentage line is the winning line. The TD consulted one of the best players in the room who was not involved in this match who said the line taken was routine and automatic. So she then assigned 6♦ making for both sides, ie the table score.

Now E/W felt hard done by. While N/S would quite likely have made it, people do not always follow the best apparent line for various reasons and the chance of it going off had been removed by the UI. So they considered appealing.

Having discussed it with their N/S pair, and read the Law book, the two teams then had an amicable discussion, and decided that a fairer ruling was:

For N/S:
.. 90% of 6♦ =, NS +920
+ 10% of 6♦ -1, NS -50

For E/W:
.. 50% of 6♦ =, NS +920
+ 50% of 6♦ -1, NS -50

This would alter the match score in VPs from 17-3 to 16-6. They took this to the TD who agreed to amend it to this under Law 82C.



Ok, well, that is fine and dandy, and either you agree or disagree, but what about these comments:

Cyberyeti, on 2011-January-17, 05:41, said:

Had the board previously been played at the other table in the teams match ? if not, definitely substitute the board.

I would suggest substituting the board if a normal result had been attained at the other table, the only difficulty is if something really stupid has happened there.

gordontd, on 2011-January-17, 01:57, said:

It's too late for a substitute player, but a substitute board might well be the solution. Failing that, an artificial adjusted score seems appropriate.

L16C was one that changed in the last revision, and while it improved in some respects the wording is very poor in others. It could certainly be tightened up.

There seems a serious difficulty here. The TD allowed it to be played out, as she is now entitled to do. Without knowing all the details and discussing the board at length when part way through it seems the obvious solution. But once she has done so, I believe substituting the board is not legal and giving Artificial scores is very unsatisfactory. I am also very unhappy at deciding anything based on the result in the other room. Put yourself in the shoes of either team here.

Of course it might have been different if either team had been at fault, but especially for N/S any ruling that completely removes their slam swing after the hand is played out seems unfortunate or worse.

[mfa1010]

I think the teams' compromise was a fair one. Could have been a good TD ruling in the first place.

bluejak, on 2011-January-20, 07:41, said:

The TD allowed it to be played out, as she is now entitled to do.

A question: Isn't it so that the TD is now required to demand the board played out, once they have started it but not yet finished?

Quote

16C3. If such unauthorized information is received after the first call in the auction has been made and before completion of the play of the board the Director proceeds as in 2c.

Quote

16C2c. ...allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result;

It is not entirely clear though because of the word "allow" in 16C2c, but in 16C3 TD is not offered any other options.

The adjusted score can still be an artificial one, law 12C2.

[Cyberyeti]

I think the compromise was not a bad one (essentially the bidders get most of a slam swing, their opps get a flattish board), but I'm not sure of using the principles it establishes in other situations. Imagine the same UI and the Q in the other hand, now how do you sort it out ? I'm sure both sides would have happily taken 3 IMPS.

Was the cause of the problem fined ? and if not why not ?

[campboy]

mfa1010, on 2011-January-20, 08:54, said:

The adjusted score can still be an artificial one, law 12C2.

(I don't have a lawbook with me, but from memory) doesn't he have to consider the possibilities "numerous" or "not obvious" to give an artificial score? Here it is clear that the only possible results are 11 or 12 tricks in 6♦.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that it is indeed 12C2{d} that would lead to an ArtAS, and also that 12C2{d} does not apply here for the reasons Campboy stated.

Having allowed the board to be played (which is what I would have done) it seems to me the TD must either allow the result to stand, or come up with a reasonable weighted score (in 12C2{c} jurisdictions). I might not have thought of a split score, because I believe cases where a split score is appropriate are rare. On reflection, though, this is probably one such case, given that neither side at the table was at fault.

16C2 says what the director "may" do (any of the options a, b, c, d), but in the specific case where 16C3 applies, he is limited to only one of them (16C2{c}), so I don't think "may" (or "allow") means he might do something else in that case. It is unclear to me whether this is such a case, since it wasn't said when the "noise" made UI available, only that they "didn't realize it" and didn't call the TD until after the play had started. Still, it seems "close enough" that this law should apply, especially in the absence of clear evidence that the UI was received (and therefore the TD should have been called) sooner.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2011-January-20, 07:41, said:

Having discussed it with their N/S pair, and read the Law book, the two teams then had an amicable discussion, and decided that a fairer ruling was:

For N/S:
.. 90% of 6♦ =, NS +920
+ 10% of 6♦ -1, NS -50

For E/W:
.. 50% of 6♦ =, NS +920
+ 50% of 6♦ -1, NS -50

This would alter the match score in VPs from 17-3 to 16-6. They took this to the TD who agreed to amend it to this under Law 82C.

The two teams came up with a proposal for split and weighted scores? Tell me, David, you weren't by any chance playing on one of these teams, were you?

[mfa1010]

campboy, on 2011-January-20, 11:24, said:

(I don't have a lawbook with me, but from memory) doesn't he have to consider the possibilities "numerous" or "not obvious" to give an artificial score? Here it is clear that the only possible results are 11 or 12 tricks in 6♦.

Yes I agree.
My comment was meant as a general observation.

[dburn]

campboy, on 2011-January-20, 11:24, said:

(I don't have a lawbook with me, but from memory) doesn't he have to consider the possibilities "numerous" or "not obvious" to give an artificial score? Here it is clear that the only possible results are 11 or 12 tricks in 6♦.

Sure, but the TD might also consider that North-South would not have reached 6♦ if South had not known that East had ♦Q. So, possible results should perhaps also include games for North-South.

I am not entirely clear in my mind as to the point at which the TD can no longer deem normal play of a board impossible. It does not seem to me at variance with the Law for a TD to allow bidding and play to be completed, and then say "well, that wasn't normal bidding or normal play, so I shall cancel the board in retrospect" [Law 16C2c refers]. Since the auction is not given in the OP, I am unable to form a judgement as to whether this would have been a wise course for the TD - but I think it a legal course.

Whereas it is obviously not a good idea for the TD to give one ruling, then another, then collude with the players in the reaching of some compromise, I confess that I have a great deal of sympathy with the TD and the players in the actual case. I could even accept the compromise ruling, were it not for my implacable opposition to VPs being arbitrarily added to the economy because of the misdemeanours of some jackass. 16-6 should have been 14.5-5.5.

[Cyberyeti]

dburn, on 2011-January-20, 17:57, said:

Whereas it is obviously not a good idea for the TD to give one ruling, then another, then collude with the players in the reaching of some compromise, I confess that I have a great deal of sympathy with the TD and the players in the actual case. I could even accept the compromise ruling, were it not for my implacable opposition to VPs being arbitrarily added to the economy because of the misdemeanours of some jackass. 16-6 should have been 14.5-5.5.

Well I would hope 2 or more were removed from another match ...

[gnasher]

dburn, on 2011-January-20, 17:57, said:

Sure, but the TD might also consider that North-South would not have reached 6♦ if South had not known that East had ♦Q. So, possible results should perhaps also include games for North-South.

But we're told that South only realised the significance of the UI "sometime around when dummy appeared". Presumably, therefore, it can't have affected his bidding.

Quote

Whereas it is obviously not a good idea for the TD to give one ruling, then another, then collude with the players in the reaching of some compromise, I confess that I have a great deal of sympathy with the TD and the players in the actual case. I could even accept the compromise ruling, were it not for my implacable opposition to VPs being arbitrarily added to the economy because of the misdemeanours of some jackass. 16-6 should have been 14.5-5.5.

Yes. It seems particularly unwise to allow the players to print VPs.