Overheard hand discussion

[One Short]

Playing in a club teams event, the contested auction had reached the point where my partner was agonising over whether to raise my last bid of [5_CL] to [6_CL] when he overheard a trusted comment that the board was a stone-cold small slam in clubs. He felt that he could not now make the slam bid, passed and explained the position as he was tabling dummy.

The small slam was indeed stone-cold but nothing further was done in a friendly club spirit............ but all the more devastating as the opposing team had not even bid the game.

But what should my partner have done ?

[Lobowolf]

Playing in a club teams event, the contested auction had reached the point where my partner was agonising over whether to raise my last bid of [5_CL] to [6_CL] when he overheard a trusted comment that the board was a stone-cold small slam in clubs. He felt that he could not now make the slam bid, passed and explained the position as he was tabling dummy.

The small slam was indeed stone-cold but nothing further was done in a friendly club spirit............ but all the more devastating as the opposing team had not even bid the game.

But what should my partner have done ?

Informed the director.

[jeffford76]

Called the director.

 

Law 16

 

C. Extraneous Information from Other Sources

1. 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.

 

A more interesting question is what should the director do? Suppose you judge it equally likely the person would bid and not bid the slam without the information, but you're in the ACBL so you can't award a weighted score.

[blackshoe]

A more interesting question is what should the director do?  Suppose you judge it equally likely the person would bid and not bid the slam without the information, but you're in the ACBL so you can't award a weighted score.

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

 

There is a clear implication here that when the TD deems that the player in receipt of UI has taken advantage of it, the score should be adjusted. Hearing that 6 is cold, and then bidding only 5, is not taking advantage, so if he bids only game, there should be no adjustment. If, hearing that 6 is cold, he bid six, then the TD must judge whether the UI colored the decision. If it's 50/50 whether to bid slam or stop in game, I'd say it did. If it's clear, on the bidding and the bidder's hand, to bid six (if, effectively, there is no LA), then no adjustment either way.

 

The … person … who couldn't keep his mouth shut should get a procedural penalty. Cutting his throat might be appropriate, but the laws don't allow that. Whatever the normal PP is. Double that if he's experienced enough that he should have known better. Off the top of my head, I think that's either 3 or 6 imps in the ACBL, but I might be wrong about the amount.

[jeffford76]

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

 

There is a clear implication here that when the TD deems that the player in receipt of UI has taken advantage of it, the score should be adjusted.

I think that UI affecting the result does not require UI to be taken advantage of. If I bid 5C out of obligation to the UI law, the UI still affected my result. (Half the time otherwise I would have scored higher.) That's certainly fair for when my partner gave me the UI, but not when some random person at another table did.

[blackshoe]

Yet how will you adjust the score if the effect of the UI is to give the recipient a bad result? Is giving back his potential better result, had he acted on the UI, fair to his opponents?

[jeffford76]

Yet how will you adjust the score if the effect of the UI is to give the recipient a bad result? Is giving back his potential better result, had he acted on the UI, fair to his opponents?

Honestly I don't think there's a fair way to adjudicate this under ACBL rules. The "correct" think to do is to work out how likely he was to go on absent the UI and weight the score.

 

I was hoping someone had a more clever solution than "Tough luck, even though you did nothing wrong, you get a worse score."

[jmcw]

The … person … who couldn't keep his mouth shut should get a procedural penalty. Cutting his throat might be appropriate, but the laws don't allow that. Whatever the normal PP is. Double that if he's experienced enough that he should have known better. Off the top of my head, I think that's either 3 or 6 imps in the ACBL, but I might be wrong about the amount.

Way too messy. A particulary painful poison should go in his next coffee.

[blackshoe]

The player chose not to bid 6. In so doing, he complied with the laws. It's unfortunate that he got a worse score than he might have, but this isn't the only situation in which that's possible.

 

I wouldn't tell him "tough luck", I'd applaud his ethics.

 

The ACBL approach may, particularly in this case, not be as "fair" as the weighted score approach that (most of?) the rest of the world uses, but it is nonetheless the law in North America, and we TDs here have to abide by it.

[kenrexford]

Seems like a plausible solution is possible. Say Board #12 is fouled because of Pair 1 N-S. If pair 2 N-S inadvertently hears this, then give Pair 2 N-S the score for 6♣ making, perhaps an 11 on a 12 top. Give the E-W playing 2 N-S the score for 5♣+1, perhaps a 6 on a 12 top. Then, since this gives the N-S pair an 11 and the E-W pair a 6, for 17 total out of 12 possible, then subtract 5 MP from the score received by pair 1 N-S on the board. If 1 N-S were arguing that N or S should have bid slam and not passed 5♣, for a likely score of "just a 6," then the score of "just a 1" will maybe send a message.

[blackshoe]

"Fouled" has a specific meaning in the laws, and it does not apply here.

 

It was "teams", which implies (but, I'll grant you, does not guarantee) imps, not MPs.

 

The size of a PP is dependent on the severity of the offense and the degree of culpability of the offender. It has, or should have, absolutely nothing to do with the score actually achieved on a board, at any table.

 

There is no requirement that scores should balance. Well, except for the ACBL position that artificial adjusted scores must balance, but imo that position is illegal.

 

I'll have to think about whether your suggested split score is legal, Ken. Maybe it is, but I'm out of time right now. Got a game to go run. ;)

[jeffford76]

The player chose not to bid 6. In so doing, he complied with the laws. It's unfortunate that he got a worse score than he might have, but this isn't the only situation in which that's possible.

I don't really think it's a "choice" not to bid 6 if he's going to get the same score from the TD whether or not he bids 6.

 

In what other situation is a player required by the laws to do something that hurts his side when his side has committed no irregularity?

 

I also still don't see why you don't think "unauthorized information may have affected the result" if the player bids 5C. Being required to choose the least suggested LA sure seems like affecting the result to me.

[Sven Pran]

What shoould the Director have done if he had been called?

 

Somewhere (ref WBFLC or EBL?) I have seen a rule that the Director shall stand ready to award an adjusted score, treating both sides as NON-offending.

 

regards Sven

[Cyberyeti]

What shoould the Director have done if he had been called?

 

Somewhere (ref WBFLC or EBL?) I have seen a rule that the Director shall stand ready to award an adjusted score, treating both sides as NON-offending.

 

regards Sven

I've been in this situation as a player but with a twist. I called the director and explained the problem and he removed the board. It turned out that opponents were not happy, as they'd got a good result on the board, and that in fact the person I'd overheard was my team mate. This was a "do you bid a slam and if so which denomination and small or grand" type problem and I heard there was a first round ruff off this, but didn't know that this was the only trick off it, oppos had made 6Cx.

 

Had this happened at my table, I suspect I'd have bid 6C, pulled to 6N and I don't think the opening leader would have found the lead of the K from KJ10xx which was the only lead to beat it, so I'd have lost 3 IMPs.

 

After opponents complained, director just awarded the opponents 5 IMPs without explaining exactly why. Director should have known what they were doing (this was a minor national final), I presume this was the usual 3 IMP penalty plus a 2 IMP PP, but not sure.

 

My problem with the way this is handled is that it really encourages you not to be honest in the future.

[Finch]

The last time exactly this happened to me (I was considering whether to pass 5 or bid 6 and heard a comment from an adjacent table that 6D was cold) I called the TD and he said the board was now unplayable and gave both pairs at our table 60%.

 

The TD was a very eminent poster to these forums.

[campboy]

Ken's suggestion seems quite plausible to me. If we give an adjusted score then it is clear that both sides are non-offending and so each side gets "the most favourable result that was likely " as per 12C1e(i).

 

The problem with the 60/60 approach is: what do you do if either decision leads to more than 60%?

 

The fine for the people having the loud discussion should be a standard amount, though, as Ed says.

[blackshoe]

The relevant law is 16C:

1. When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play… the director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information.

2. if the director considers that the information could interfere with normal play, he may, before any call has been made:

  {a} adjust the players’ positions at the table, if the type of contest and scoring permit, so that the player with information about one hand will hold that hand; or

  {b} if the form of competition allows of it, order the board redealt for those contestants; or

  {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; or

  {d} award an artificial adjusted score.

3. 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© above.

 

The emphasis is part 2 is mine, there because it indicates that, in the first instance, this part does not apply, because calls have been made. However, part 3 tells us to apply part 2{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

Note that this provision is new in the current laws; it did not appear in the 1997 version, so if the incident that Frances relates occurred prior to the current laws going into effect, the TD's ruling was not wrong.

 

So, did the information affect the result? It surely did - it was the information that caused the player to pass rather than bid on. So we should adjust the score. In the ACBL, this leads to Law 12C1{e}:

  (i) the score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.

  (ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred.

So, which side is offending, for purposes of this law? In the instant case, assuming the EI did not come from someone's teammate, neither side is offending, so both sides get adjustments per 12C1{e}{i} For the defenders, the most favorable result that was likely is the one obtained at the table: 5 ♣+1, for -420 or -620 depending on vulnerability. For the declaring side, the most favorable result that was likely is 6♣=, for +920 or +1370. So yes, Ken's split score suggestion is legal, and that's how I'd rule.

 

Suppose the player had correctly called the director before choosing his call? What should the TD do? I would read Laws 16C2{c} and 12C1{e} to the table, and explain that, as the information came from a third party, neither side is "offending" for purposes of the latter law. I would tell the players to play on, and to call me back when play is completed.

 

It would be appropriate to ask the player, should he pass, whether he would have done so absent the EI. If so, then "result stands" would be the way to rule, I think.

 

Whatever the ruling at this table, I would ensure that the player who made the comment about 6 being cold gets a PP.

 

In reply to Jefford76: it was a choice for the player in this case, because when he made it, he did not know what the director would do. I'll assume your question about other situations is rhetorical. As you can see, I've come to the conclusion that the EI did affect the result. I would also say that in this case there is no "requirement to choose the least suggested LA".

 

In reply to Sven: I don't recall such a "rule". IAC, if it was an EBL interpretation or regulation, it would not apply in North America.

 

In replay to Campboy: the problem with the 60/60 approach is that you have to let a result be obtained, and once that's done, you must, if at all possible (and it is possible in this case) award an assigned adjusted score. IOW, the problem with the 60/60 approach is that it's illegal. :P

[jeffford76]

In reply to Jefford76:I'll assume your question about other situations is rhetorical.

It wasn't actually. It was a response to "The player chose not to bid 6. In so doing, he complied with the laws. It's unfortunate that he got a worse score than he might have, but this isn't the only situation in which that's possible."

 

But I agree with your new ruling in this case. I think there's still an element of unfairness if the likelihood of slam being bid is something other than 50-50, but under ACBL elections there's no way to remedy that.

[JoAnneM]

I audit all of our traveler slips for each game before I post the results on the web. You would be surprised how many times there is a board where only two pairs bid a slam on a board, and they are sitting right next to each other. Or maybe you wouldn't be.

[NickRW]

I audit all of our traveler slips for each game before I post the results on the web. You would be surprised how many times there is a board where only two pairs bid a slam on a board, and they are sitting right next to each other. Or maybe you wouldn't be.

Well, the sinister option is one possibility. At the club where I play most often, the better pairs tend to choose NS seats (or maybe it is that the worst pairs don't like having to do the scoring) - further they tend to cluster together at one end of the room. So there may be an innocent explanation.

 

Also, people tend to see patterns where there aren't any - I know I tend to notice, when scoring afterwards, if the last two scores on a traveller are the same - but it is easy to notice those and not notice when they are different - I doubt there is any genuine statistical correlation.

 

Nick

[Gerben42]

I would tell the director that I would have bid 6, but feel obliged not to due to the UI. Hopefully the director is reasonable and gives me the 6♣, opps 5♣+1 and charge the offenders the difference.

 

I guess you all play Mitchell tournaments in your club, that's very unusual here. After all, we want to decide who won, not two winners.

[bluejak]

A lot of clubs here play scrambled Mitchells. Not much dislocation, plenty of staionary seats, one winner.

[blackshoe]

I've thought about introducing more one winner movements here — at the small club I run, we play a lot of Howells anyway — but the players really seem to prefer the two winner scenario. Might have something to do with the "good players sit NS, we sit EW" syndrome. :(