[jallerton]

Round robin teams event.

Table 1 has played 7 out of 8 boards and has just started the auction on the final board. At table 4 (from another match, playing the same boards), the set has been completed and the team is scoring up. "I'm glad I bid on over 4♠", says one of the players, with sufficient volume that it is heard by players at table 1.

Table 1 calls the TD and explains the overheard comment. The TD advises them to continue to play the final board for the time being.

The auction on this final board was:

---

It was the winning action to bid on over 4♠ on this final board as both 5♥ and 4♠ are likely to make 10 tricks.

Should the TD be inclined to adjust the score? If so, to what? Does it depend on how obvious the 5♥ bid was?

Now for the twist in the tale. When the TD talks to the players at table 4, they claim to have been discussing a different board in the same set, i.e. a board which had already been played at table 1. Should the TD be inclined to adjust the score now?

[blackshoe]

Interesting twist.

16C1 says "When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by … overhearing calls, results or remarks … the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information."

Law 16C2 says "If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play, he may, before any call has been made … [c] 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 …"

Law 16C3 says "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 2[c] above."

Without the twist it seems clear that unless there was no LA to proceeding onward, the score should be adjusted to 4♠ making 4 for both sides. Now how about that twist? I think that the comment from the other table was extraneous to what was going on at the ruling table, and that whatever board the people at the other table were commenting about, the people at the ruling table pretty clearly thought that the comment was about the board they were playing. That being the case, I think we have to rule as above, regardless what the players at the other table claim.

[pran]

It doesn't really matter which board they were discussing at the other table, the discussion as such disrupted "normal auction" at table 1.

In my opinion the result should be adjusted to 4♠ West just made effective for EW.

If the Director rules that the 5♥ bid by North is justified (from his cards) then he should let the table result stand effective for NS otherwise he should adjust to 4♠ effective also for NS.

And the "disturbing" party should of course receive a PP (at least a warning).

[gordontd]

pran, on 2014-September-10, 01:30, said:

It doesn't really matter which board they were discussing at the other table, the discussion as such disrupted "normal auction" at table 1.

In my opinion the result should be adjusted to 4♠ West just made effective for EW.

Which law do you use for this?

[pran]

gordontd, on 2014-September-10, 01:36, said:

Which law do you use for this?

In addition to Laws 16C2c and 12 I think Laws 74A2, 74C4 and 90B3 should give somebody something to consider.

(Be aware that both sides at table 1 should be considered "not at fault"!)

[gordontd]

pran, on 2014-September-10, 03:25, said:

In addition to Laws 16C2c and 12 I think Laws 74A2, 74C4 and 90B3 should give somebody something to consider.

(Be aware that both sides at table 1 should be considered "not at fault"!)

Oh, certainly you may be able to use the last three against the player who made the remark, but the question was about adjusting the score at this table. Law 12 tells us how to adjust, but it needs L16 to apply*, and L16C2c only applies if L16C1 applies. Does it?

* You might be thinking about adjusting on the basis of L12A1, but I think that looking up the definition of "opponent" will discount that idea.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2014-September-10, 04:29, said:

L16C2c only applies if L16C1 applies. Does it?

I think it depends on what the word "information" means. If you use the meaning "what is conveyed", then wrong information is information. If you use the meaning "facts provided" then it is not information as it was not a fact. I am with you, I think, because information has to be correct information. I think that the word "correct" should appear in L16C1 to clarify the Law.

[Zelandakh]

Which side made the extraneous remark? I would be extremely upset if EI provided to me by my opponents resulted in an adverse ruling against us or in my feeling that I could not the value bid and thereby getting a bad score. Should we not be penalising the team that shouted this out?

[pran]

gordontd, on 2014-September-10, 04:29, said:

Oh, certainly you may be able to use the last three against the player who made the remark, but the question was about adjusting the score at this table. Law 12 tells us how to adjust, but it needs L16 to apply*, and L16C2c only applies if L16C1 applies. Does it?

Apparently I have to spell it out:

L16C1 clearly applies here: Players at table 1 have heard the remark from table 4.

L16C3 clearly applies and instructs the Director to use L16C2c.

The Director cannot exclude the probability that the remark "may have affected the result".

So what?

[Vampyr]

Why is the result not adjusted to +3/+3? Is this not possible once the board has been played?

Of course it is interesting what happens if the board is not played, since this board might not have coincidentally have the same issue as the board that was being discussed (was there another board that they could have been discussing?)

At least I am sure that the PP is correct!

[gordontd]

pran, on 2014-September-10, 07:03, said:

Apparently I have to spell it out:

L16C1 clearly applies here: Players at table 1 have heard the remark from table 4.

And apparently I have to spell out the problem with this: Law 16C1 requires the information to be "about a board he is playing or is has yet to play". Does that apply to this board?

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2014-September-10, 08:38, said:

And apparently I have to spell out the problem with this: Law 16C1 requires the information to be "about a board he is playing or is has yet to play". Does that apply to this board?

The players have assumed it does. Why should we let them use the information then?

[axman]

gordontd, on 2014-September-10, 04:29, said:

Oh, certainly you may be able to use the last three against the player who made the remark, but the question was about adjusting the score at this table. Law 12 tells us how to adjust, but it needs L16 to apply*, and L16C2c only applies if L16C1 applies. Does it?

* You might be thinking about adjusting on the basis of L12A1, but I think that looking up the definition of "opponent" will discount that idea.

When one reads the definition:

Opponent — a player of the other side; a member of the partnership to which one is opposed.

One finds that all players in the event that are not on his side are opponents. Thus, information from the opponents at the other table is AI. [L16A2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations.]

Notably, such a state of affairs 'ought' to be incentive to put a lid on postmortems during an event.

[gordontd]

axman, on 2014-September-10, 08:58, said:

When one reads the definition:

Opponent — a player of the other side; a member of the partnership to which one is opposed.

One finds that all players in the event that are not on his side are opponents.

That takes a very particular reading of these words.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-10, 08:43, said:

The players have assumed it does. Why should we let them use the information then?

The law doesn't say "which the player believes is about a board they're playing or have yet to play", it says that the information actually has to be about one of those boards.

It's just a total coincidence that the comment happened to be right for this board. It could just as easily have gone the other way, and the other side would be asking for redress.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-September-10, 09:21, said:

The law doesn't say "which the player believes is about a board they're playing or have yet to play", it says that the information actually has to be about one of those boards.

It's just a total coincidence that the comment happened to be right for this board. It could just as easily have gone the other way, and the other side would be asking for redress.

Fair enough. No adjustment, whichever side is asking for one.1

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2014-September-10, 09:21, said:

The law doesn't say "which the player believes is about a board they're playing or have yet to play", it says that the information actually has to be about one of those boards.

It's still important to know whether there were any LAs to 5♥. After all, the attempt and intention to use UI is an infraction, isn't it?

[jallerton]

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-10, 05:55, said:

Which side made the extraneous remark? I would be extremely upset if EI provided to me by my opponents resulted in an adverse ruling against us or in my feeling that I could not the value bid and thereby getting a bad score. Should we not be penalising the team that shouted this out?

The remark did not come from the teammates of any of the players at table 1. It came from a player in a third team, which had played the same boards but in a different match.

[jallerton]

gordontd, on 2014-September-10, 08:38, said:

And apparently I have to spell out the problem with this: Law 16C1 requires the information to be "about a board he is playing or is has yet to play". Does that apply to this board?

Does this mean that the TD is required to ascertain to begin with whether the information did relate to a board already played or not?

Interestingly, the timing of the receipt of the UI is relevant. If received after the first call in the auction was made, Law 16C3 points the TD to 16C2© which advises the TD to:

Quote

allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorsed information may have affected the result

Note that 16C2c talks about "unauthorised information" not "the unauthorised information". Is the information received from the other table (assuming that it was about another board) authorised or not?

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2014-September-10, 04:43, said:

I think it depends on what the word "information" means. If you use the meaning "what is conveyed", then wrong information is information. If you use the meaning "facts provided" then it is not information as it was not a fact. I am with you, I think, because information has to be correct information. I think that the word "correct" should appear in L16C1 to clarify the Law.

Yes, the wording of this whole Law needs a rethink.

As a player, I'll often hear some remark or other from another table. Typically I would regard the remark as insignificant (even something like "I should have led a heart" would not have an effect on what could happen at my table when we don't know who was on lead to which trick against which contract on which board. My policy when in receipt of such insignificant information is to forget about it.

However, my policy seems to be inconsistent with Law 16C1 which states.

Quote

When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information.

Apparently, next time I over-hear a remark or even an announcement such as "12-14" from a another table, what I should be doing is asking the players at the table concerned which board they are talking about. This seems totally counter-intuitive to me, but I need to know whether I have played the board in question so that I can know whether the TD should be notified.