Overheard at the next table

[Ant590]

EBU: UK

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sj763h9542d8762c4&w=sk9852hk8dt9caq52&e=sqthaqjt63dakq5c3&s=sa4h7dj43ckjt9876]399|300|Scoring: XIMP[/hv]

 

Bidding begins:

N  E   S   W

P 1♥ 3♣ 3NT

P

 

There is a playing director.

 

At this point, East tells the table that he thinks he overheard the last table talking about this board, and that he heard the result. N/S tell him that they believe he will act ethically and to continue.

 

N  E   S   W

P 1♥ 3♣ 3NT

P 4♣ DBL 4♥

P 5♦   P   6♥.

 

During the claim, East (declarer) says he wasn't sure how clearcut his actions may have been, and asks director to rule on the board. East heard "twelve top tricks" from the next table, but without reference to the board number. The next table feed board to this table, so it was possible for East to have tracked the boards without much effort.  

 

How do you rule?

[axman]

EBU: UK

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sj763h9542d8762c4&w=sk9852hk8dt9caq52&e=sqthaqjt63dakq5c3&s=sa4h7dj43ckjt9876]399|300|Scoring: XIMP[/hv]

 

Bidding begins:

N  E   S   W

P 1♥ 3♣ 3NT

P

 

There is a playing director.

 

At this point, East tells the table that he thinks he overheard the last table talking about this board, and that he heard the result. N/S tell him that they believe he will act ethically and to continue.

 

N  E   S   W

P 1♥ 3♣ 3NT

P 4♣ DBL 4♥

P 5♦   P   6♥.

 

During the claim, East (declarer) says he wasn't sure how clearcut his actions may have been, and asks director to rule on the board. East heard "twelve top tricks" from the next table, but without reference to the board number. The next table feed board to this table, so it was possible for East to have tracked the boards without much effort.  

 

How do you rule?

[a] E asserts he heard a gratuitous comments from another table

we are not told the movement nor geography

[c] E has made a gratuitous comment to the table

[d] the auction does not make sense [how does W know there aren't 2 H losers?]

[e] we have not been told the bidding agreements

[f] not enough information to draw conclusions

[blackshoe]

<sigh> "We don't need the director, we can fix this ourselves... oh, wait, I guess we do need the director after all. Mr. Director, sir, we have completely screwed this up, would you please unscrew it for us?"

 

Sheesh. I'm tempted to start with PPs all around.

 

It looks like the OP was edited after Axman's reply, because several of the latter's objections don't make sense to me.

 

My take: East has shown an unbalanced or semi-balanced hand with serious slam interest (he did make two slam tries, one of them above game). West has shown a balanced or semi-balanced minimum game hand with no more than two hearts, no diamond control, at least one club stopper, and a spade control. I note that East has four losers, and West 6, by LTC. East has UI from another table (that some board he will play in this round, apparently this one, has twelve top tricks). West has UI from East that East knows something about, probably, this board. So. East makes a slam try (4C). That one's okay, I think. West says "no, thanks". So far, so good. Now East makes another slam try. Absent the UI, there would be no problem. With it, I think perhaps the UI may have influenced the call. Now West accepts the second slam try, in spite of his meager resources. I think UI may have influenced this call as well.

 

Law 16C2c tells me to adjust the score, and Law 12C1 tells me to adjust, in this case, to 4H+2 East, +680 EW, -680 NS.

 

This is a judgment call — if the TD judges that UI did not influence the result (the words in Law 16C2) then there has been no infraction which would lead to a score adjustment (failure to call the TD before the board was played is still an infraction, but one which would lead only to PPs, if anything).

[greenender]

I agree with most of what Ed says, but:

 

1. I would be more inclined to penalise the next table for an audible post-mortem than this one for its misguided attempt to avoid toubling the playing director. I'd be more inclined to penalise them for not calling a non-playing director.

 

2. W has UI as well as E, to be sure, but I can't really see how it demonstrably suggests anything. From W's perspective what E heard might have been along the times of "dreadfully unlucky - it's a 75% slam".

[blackshoe]

Good point about possibly penalizing the next table, where the UI originated. Not sure I agree about playing vs. non-playing directors. Personally, while I prefer being the latter, I've been the former often enough, and while it is annoying to be called when you're in the middle of some complex hand, that's part of the job. I'd rather that than have to spend more time later on trying to unscrew something that would have been easier if I'd been called at the right time.

[bluejak]

I, too find axman's complaints a little surprising. For example, who cares if West made a bid we would not? People do that about a million times a day!

 

But I am not sure that blackshoe has not missed a point in his adjustment, which looks harsh on E/W to me. While the 5♦ bid would be disallowed if East had UI from partner, that is not the way we rule with UI from elsewhere. East is not expected to bend over backwards to avoid using the UI. Furthermore, I do not believe there is an offending side here, so I am rather more tempted by:

 

For N/S:

NS -680

 

For E/W:

.. 30% of NS -1430

+ 70% of NS -680

[iviehoff]

Here, it seems to me it is NS who deserve what they got. E mentioned his problem to the opponents, and the opponents told him they trusted him, and told him to continue. It is then E who calls the director at the end - if NS had called the director I might well have read 11A at them, even if E had then been blatant. Seems to me E is trying very hard to do the right thing: and we see that in his bidding too.

 

E has a distributional 18 count, a 4-loser hand. His partner bid 3NT after E showed no more than an opening bid. Now that may not be full strength given the interference, but surely most of us think E is worth another try after 4H? E didn't blast slam after either the 3N or 4H bids, as many agricultural players would at that point with no UI - that would have been abuse of UI - he went through two slam tries, and his partner bid slam. He was trying very hard to do the right thing. I think giving EW only 30% of the slam seems distinctly on the stingy side.

[axman]

I, too find axman's complaints a little surprising. For example, who cares if West made a bid we would not? People do that about a million times a day!

 

But I am not sure that blackshoe has not missed a point in his adjustment, which looks harsh on E/W to me. While the 5♦ bid would be disallowed if East had UI from partner, that is not the way we rule with UI from elsewhere. East is not expected to bend over backwards to avoid using the UI. Furthermore, I do not believe there is an offending side here, so I am rather more tempted by:

 

For N/S:

NS -680

 

For E/W:

.. 30% of NS -1430

+ 70% of NS -680

Maybe the tables are squeezed together, maybe they are far apart. Maybe there is a Howell where the remark is 4 feet away or 40 feet. Maybe it is a Mitchell and the players are 6 feet apart or 20 feet. If the players were close then there is little that the players could have done to prevent the hearing of the remark. If the remark was audible from 20 feet then the talker has immense culpability in tainting comparisons.

 

The actions of E appear to be very improper. Why didn’t he complain about the loud mouth immediately and get him to shut up ? Instead of reporting the incident in such a way that his partner was unaware [in hopes of preventing the tainting of comparisons] he communicates with partner during the auction other than by call or play [L73B]- and still does not report to the TD immediately. It is no far leap that if E has heard the remark then W also has and E’s table talk makes it crystal clear just which remarks he refers to.

 

As to bidding judgment, there is no information about what has been communicated by agreement so there is no way to draw appropriate judgment as to W’s bidding. But it is W that doesn’t have many tricks and who hasn’t yet been told that E has tons of tricks. Yet it is W who blasts into slam with the possibility of H losers and a S loser. Now if the agreements explain to W that E has [which] 8-1/2++ tricks then W’s bidding can be explained by fair play. But E’s remarks also explain pard’s bidding much better than the auction does and it looks very dirty.

 

And it is ill considered to do something about it without adequate fact collection.

[TimG]

To those that think west has UI, note that the OP said east informed the table that he had overheard the result, not what that result was. It appears to me that he only said he heard "12 top tricks" when the director was finally called.

 

If I could rule without referencing any Laws, I would assign -680 to N/S and +1430 to E/W and hit the loud mouth with a procedural penalty.

 

I'd also thank East for his honesty, but tell him that he should have called the director when he became aware of the information (or became aware that the information that he heard applied to the board in play).

[Cyberyeti]

To those that think west has UI, note that the OP poster said east informed the table that he had overheard the result, not what that result was. It appears to me that he only said he heard "12 top tricks" when the director was finally called.

 

If I could rule without referencing any Laws, I would assign -680 to N/S and +1430 to E/W and hit the loud mouth with a procedural penalty.

 

I'd also thank East for his honesty, but tell him that he should have called the director when he became aware of the information.

In think this is about right.

 

The only time this situation has seriously happened to me, the comment from the other table came from a team mate. Now what happens differently ?

[jdonn]

Whether it affects any ruling or not I want to note that it's quite clear for west to accept the second slam try. He has already rejected one try and he has K, K of opener's suit, and AQ over the preempt. That is quite huge in context, his first rejection essentially just showed a minimum strength game force and for one of those he is great for slam.

 

I also find east's second try nearly as clear. His hand is very big and it wasn't all bad news, west showed secondary heart support. The AK of spades alone gives you some play.

 

Of course if ruling LAs it would still depend on the level of player, and perhaps how they defend their choices.

[Siegmund]

Not yet mentioned as a possibility in the thread (maybe it wasnt a possibility at the table since the director wasnt called in a timely fashion)... if East and only East has UI about the board, it's reasonable to have him attempt to finish the auction as ethically as he can; but anytime this auction ends with East as declarer, I am moving West over to play the hand, so the play won't be affected by the UI.

 

Whether or not that could have saved this board, I don't know.

[gnasher]

The UI could obviously intefere with normal play, so what I'd like to do is what I'd have done if I'd been called at the proper time: cancel the board and award an artificial score to each pair.

 

However, 16C doesn't seem to let me do that, because it's not now "before any call has been made", but the information wasn't received "after the first call in the

auction has been made".

 

I'm inclined to say that in this particular area the Law is an Ass.

[RMB1]

However, 16C doesn't seem to let me do that, because it's not now "before any call has been made", but the information wasn't received "after the first call in the auction has been made".

I too want to award AVE+ to both sides, and think I can under Law 16C2c/d, Law 16C3 or Law 12A2.

[bluejak]

The only time this situation has seriously happened to me, the comment from the other table came from a team mate. Now what happens differently ?

Now you have an offending side.

 

Of course if ruling LAs it would still depend on the level of player, and perhaps how they defend their choices.

But LAs do not come into it.

 

I too want to award AVE+ to both sides, and think I can under Law 16C2c/d, Law 16C3 or Law 12A2.

It is not obvious to me why you want to. Players like to play boards, and said so in this case.

 

Furthermore it does not look legal to me. Law 12A2 does not apply: we got a result. Law 16C2D does not apply since play occurred. Law 16C3 leads to Law 16C2C which leads to Law 12C and Law 12C1A applies.

[gnasher]

However, 16C doesn't seem to let me do that, because it's not now "before any call has been made", but the information wasn't received "after the first call in the auction has been made".

I too want to award AVE+ to both sides, and think I can under Law 16C2c/d, Law 16C3 or Law 12A2.

16C2 begins "If the Director considers that the information could interfere with

normal play he may, before any call has been made"

 

A whole load of calls have been made, so that one's out, isn't it?

 

16C3 begins "If such unauthorized information is received after the first call in the

auction has been made"

 

The UI was received before the first call was made, so that's no use either.

 

I agree that you can use 12A2. All that I meant was that we have a fairly common situation involving extraneous information "from another source" which seems to be specifically excluded from the section headed "Extraneous Information from Other Sources".

[dburn]

If East has heard from the adjoining table the phrase "twelve top tricks", then normal play of this board in the given circumstances has become impossible. However much East attempts to "act ethically", one cannot allow play to proceed with this amount of information available to a player, since it is bound to affect his judgement at least subconsciously.

 

The Director should simply inform the table that had he been called when he should have been called, he would not have allowed play to continue beyond South's 3♣ overcall, and he should adjust the score to average plus for both sides. Law 12A3 is the only authority he needs for this purpose: there has been an "incorrect rectification of an irregularity" by the players at the table, who did not call the Director when they ought to have done.

 

Of course, if a player has heard "twelve top tricks" from the next table, that will not render normal play of the board impossible in all circumstances; it may be that the East-West methods allow a completely automatic auction to a slam. But that is not the case here, and the result on the board cannot be allowed to stand. To give a weighted score here is absurd as well as being wholly unjustifiable from a legal point of view, although as in many cases where it is absurd to give a weighted score, no doubt the players would not mind all that much if it were done.

[bluejak]

When the Laws permit a weighted score it is not clear how this can be "unjustified legally". You are merely making a bridge judgement, not a book ruling. How do you know this was the board referred to? After all, it does not have twelve top tricks, does it?

[dburn]

Oh, if it transpired that there were twelve top tricks on any other of the boards passed to this table from the adjoining one, I might take a different view. What odds would you like?

 

Having said that, I am not sure that I actually would take a different view. Despite jdonn's cogent arguments, I am not convinced that making two slam tries (one of them above game) on the East cards is as clear as all that. But I am sure that anyone hearing the phrase "twelve top tricks" from the next table would do so, just in case this happened to be the deal on which there actually were twelve top tricks.

 

Weighted scores are fine and dandy, and - nay, because - they allow all manner of legal shortcomings to be fudged. But here is no case for a weighted score: if the Director had been called when he should have been, the board would never have been played and the result would have been average plus for both sides. That is what the Director should award on his eventual arrival.

[jallerton]

To those that think west has UI, note that the OP said east informed the table that he had overheard the result, not what that result was.  It appears to me that he only said he heard "12 top tricks" when the director was finally called.

West has the UI that [a] East has heard a result at another table and East is concerned that it may affect his own bidding on this board.

 

If East had heard that someone had made an overtrick in 1NT or had gone one off in 3NT on some board at some other table, it is unlikely that he would have bothered to mention it; games and part scores are sufficiently common that such knowledge is unlikely to provide any meaningful UI. Just because Mrs Muggins couldn't make 3NT at another table does not mean that it is necessarily advantageous to prevent East's clever partner from declaring 3NT on what may well be a completely different auction.

 

On the other hand, if East has heard that Mrs Muggins has bid and made slam, East will know that this it probably is advantageous to bid the slam and that the unauthorised information may cause a problem.

 

Hence West can take an educated guess on what East might have heard.

 

Furthermore it does not look legal to me. Law 12A2 does not apply: we got a result. 

 

Can you explain this a bit further, please? Law 12A2 says that:

 

. The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below).

 

Given the information East has from outside sources, is "normal play" possible?

[bluejak]

Ok, both Jeffrey and David seem to think it completely automatic to stop play on the board. In a club, TDs who stop play do not make many friends: most players assume that having paid for 24 boards or whatever they are entitled to 24 boards with bidding and play.

 

Law 16C gives the TD the options. Now that it has legalised allowing play to continue but adjusting if necessary, everyone is happy: most TDs used to do it illegally because that is what the players want. So the norm in a club is Law 16C2C.

 

Law 12A2 is irrelevant: 12A Laws are there for problems not covered otherwise. But extraneous information from other sources has its own Law: 16C.

 

Incidentally, how do I know it is a club? I do not. But there is a playing TD and that usually means a club - and often not the largest club either.

 

So, I think that finally we have the legalities sorted: at least I hope we do. Ignore other Laws as a red herring, Law 16C2 applies. I strain always to use Law 16C2C: Jeffrey and David think Law 16C2D should be applied.

 

Having said that, one of the reasons I like Law 16C2C is that most players do. But if the players were saying "I do not think we can play this: we know too much", and all seemed happy I would use Law 16C2D myself. But we know in this case the players wanted to play it - because they did! :)

 

Given the information East has from outside sources, is "normal play" possible?

Nearly always, yes: and we do not use this Law in such cases.

[gnasher]

Law 16C2 applies.

Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but my copy of Law 16C2 begins

 

If the Director considers that the information could interfere with

normal play he may, before any call has been made:

A number of calls have been made, so I don't see why you think this law applies to this situation.

[bluejak]

You are right: sorry. Law 16C3 applies, and that directs you to Law 16C2C.

[gnasher]

You are right: sorry. Law 16C3 applies, and that directs you to Law 16C2C.

Law 16C3 is the one that begins "If such unauthorized information is received after the first call in the auction has been made". The UI was, presumably, received sometime during the previous round, so that doesn't apply either.

 

Will I need to say this a fourth time, do you think, or is three enough?

[dburn]

Law 16C2 applies.

Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but my copy of Law 16C2 begins

 

If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play he may, before any call has been made:

A number of calls have been made, so I don't see why you think this law applies to this situation.

Law 16C2C permits the Director to "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".

 

That is, Law 16C2 may apply to events that occur after calls have been made, and therefore to this situation. Law 16C3, on the other hand, does not apply at all to this situation.

 

However, Law 16C2C appears to indicate that if the Director allows play on the board to begin, he must also allow it to finish, and only then award an adjusted score. This is pointless: what the Director ought to do is to allow play to begin, but curtail it if it becomes clear that play can no longer continue normally because of the unauthorized information. This is analogous to the the situation in which a pair has started to bid a board against the wrong opponents; when the right opponents arrive, play is permitted to continue as long as the auction follows in all respects that conducted against the wrong ones, but curtailed as soon as it does not (Law 15C refers).

 

If the Law does not permit the Director to follow this course of action, then the Law is indeed an ass.