Double Trouble

[lamford]

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sakqj7532hdkq82c3&w=s96h98da973cakqj5&e=s4hak7632dj104c1042&s=s108hqj1054d65c9876]399|300|Scoring: IMP

North East South West

4D* Pass 4S All Pass[/hv]

North was a bit heavy for his SAT 4♦ bid here, and South had a routine 4♠ bid. But "the play's the thing" as they say. West led the five of clubs (!) and East won with the ten of clubs. He scratched his head, and returned a trump, after which declarer had to drift one off. South asked West why he had led the five of clubs, and he replied that he had heard from the next table that he needed to underlead the AKQJ of clubs, and he was going to own up to it after the hand anyway, as he thought the board could not be played, and he wondered why the lead was necessary. The TD was called, and seemed mystified as this board had only just come up from downstairs and had not been played in this room yet. All was revealed later when this hand occurred:

 

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sakqj7532hdkq82c3&w=s96h98da973cakqj5&e=s4hak7632dj104c1042&s=s108hqj1054d65c9876]399|300|Scoring: IMP

North East South West

4D* Pass 4S All Pass[/hv]

East had indeed commented after this hand, when 6♥ made, that West needed to underlead his AKQJ of clubs, and, remarkably, this was the remark which led West to make his odd choice on the other board.

 

So, how do you rule on both boards, and what PP do you give to West if any?

[gwnn]

Reminds me of fred's funny article on discarding dull hands from IMP pairs events :)

[CSGibson]

I find it hilarious that W really did need to underlead to beat this contract. I think a PP is way too harsh for W unless he has a pattern of unethical behavior - I would just have a quiet word, and tell him that he needs to call the director at the time that he gets the UI, not after the hand has been played. As for actual rulings, I think N-S have been damaged, as W would not have played this way without UI and because it is the only way to beat the contract. I would change their score to making 4 in all likelihood on the board they played, and then not allow E-W to play the other board. The pair I would assign a PP to is the pair that was talking loudly enough to be overheard.

[lamford]

As far as the board he is playing is concerned, West did not receive unauthorised information "about the board he is playing", so has no UI as defined in 16C1. I agree, of course, regarding the board he is yet to play.

[Pict]

True that 16C1 mentions the board you are playing etc, but it also says the TD is to be notified forthwith. Since this would have solved the problem, I would rule against West.

[jdonn]

West needs medication and a good therapist in order for society to not be at risk.

[lamford]

True that 16C1 mentions the board you are playing etc, but it also says the TD is to be notified forthwith.  Since this would have solved the problem, I would rule against West.

I agree he infracted regarding the board still to be played, and could be penalised on that one for not informing the TD forthwith. On this one, however, he did not receive any UI - he just thought he did - so he has no obligation to inform the TD either forthwith or otherwise!

[Pict]

It seems to me quite common to rule use of UI from partner when his hand is completely at variance with the imputed UI. Why should the situation be so different for extraneous information.

[blackshoe]

Law 16C1 refers to a board "he has yet to play", which includes not only the board he is about to play, but all futures boards in this session. If he had called the TD "forthwith" when he received extraneous information which, he thought, applied to the board he was about to play, the TD would have investigated, and told him he was mistaken, and to go ahead and play the board. He might well then have not underled his club honors, and the contract might have made. I do not think that the fact that, as it happens, the information he received was about a different board than the one he was about to play, makes a difference to that.

 

Law 73C says

A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

 

If my first paragraph is valid, then West has violated this law in not calling the TD forthwith, even though he intended to do so later. Since the law uses the term "must not", I would issue a PP for this violation, and I would adjust the score based on paragraph one above.

[RMB1]

I fine East who made the overheard remark.

 

I fine West who overheard the remark and did not notify the TD. To instead use the information and own up later is highly improper even if he intends to call the TD, and he did not intend to gain. We only have his word that he was going to call the TD - there was time for someone to ask why he underlead AKQJx.

 

If he had been notified earlier, the TD could have allowed West to play both boards and awarded an adjusted score. It does not say whether West can use the information during the boards. It is tempting, when the TD finds there are two AKQJx's to tell West to ignore the UI because it may not be helpful. Also, if West were the only one to hear the remark, the TD could switch EW so East on lead with AKQJx on both hands.

 

The overheard remarks have made the second board unplayable, and the TD would normally adjust to AVE+/AVE+. The first board is unplayable due to a combination of the overheard remark and West not notifying the TD. West is at least partially at fault, so an artificial AVE+/AVE would be appropriate.

 

I would award NS AVE+ on both boards.

 

I would award AVE= to EW on both boards and an EBU standard fine of 10% top (=difference between AVE+ and AVE=). The same effect would be to award AVE+ + AVE= + a fine of twice the standard amount.

[lamford]

The first board is unplayable due to a combination of the overheard remark and West not notifying the TD.

This is the only part of your post with which I might take issue. I cannot find justification in the laws for awarding an adjusted score, or artificial score, on this board, merely because of the coincidence of West's holding in clubs.

 

There is a clear implication in 16C1 that the unauthorized information must pertain to the board in question, not to the board to which West thinks it pertains. Let us say that West passed a balanced 12 count third in hand, because he overheard someone criticise his partner for opening 1NT third in hand, and decided to guess that this was the board in question, when in fact it was not, would you award an artiifical adjusted score? I have no problem with the fines, but are you deciding the board is unplayable under 16C1?

[blackshoe]

There is a clear implication in 16C1 that the unauthorized information must pertain to the board in question, not to the board to which West thinks it pertains.

No, there is not. The law uses the phrase "a board he has yet to play". That doesn't necessarily mean "the board he is about to play".

[pran]

I find it hilarious that W really did need to underlead to beat this contract.  I think a PP is way too harsh for W unless he has a pattern of unethical behavior - I would just have a quiet word, and tell him that he needs to call the director at the time that he gets the UI, not after the hand has been played.  As for actual rulings, I think N-S have been damaged, as W would not have played this way without UI and because it is the only way to beat the contract.  I would change their score to making 4 in all likelihood on the board they played, and then not allow E-W to play the other board.  The pair I would assign a PP to is the pair that was talking loudly enough to be overheard.

I have looked and looked, but must admit I still do not see why underleading the club honors is the only way to beat the contract?

 

If West leads the ♣A, and when he sees dummy realizes that the only way the contract can be set is if declarer cannot ruff his diamond losers, will he then not switch to a trump in trick 2 as the only chance?

 

Forget it - of course not ruffing diamonds but playing two times towards KQ.

My eyes stood in the way of seeing this.

[jallerton]

I find it hilarious that W really did need to underlead to beat this contract.

Hilarious?

 

Let's just say that 8410 shapes and 9-card suits are relatively rare and that the original poster is very good at devising unusual puzzles.

[lamford]

I find it hilarious that W really did need to underlead to beat this contract.

Hilarious?

 

Let's just say that 8410 shapes and 9-card suits are relatively rare and that the original poster is very good at devising unusual puzzles.

I am flattered and shall add you and your partner to my list for a Christmas Card, which usually includes a puzzle.

[lamford]

There is a clear implication in 16C1 that the unauthorized information must pertain to the board in question, not to the board to which West thinks it pertains.

No, there is not. The law uses the phrase "a board he has yet to play". That doesn't necessarily mean "the board he is about to play".

I agree, but surely this means that the UI must relate to that board. If West had already played the 6H hand cited, there would clearly be no adjustment.

 

I am arguing that it is only the hand from which he overheard a comment that can be adjusted. The other is just rub of the green.

[RMB1]

The first board is unplayable due to a combination of the overheard remark and West not notifying the TD.

This is the only part of your post with which I might take issue. I cannot find justification in the laws for awarding an adjusted score, or artificial score, on this board, merely because of the coincidence of West's holding in clubs.

Perhaps it is not unplayable, in the sense of Law 16C, but nevertheless I think we can adjust.

 

Law 16C1 "the director should be notified".

Introduction: ' "should" do (failure to do it is an infraction ...)'.

Definitions: "Irregularity – a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player."

 

LAW 23: AWARENESS OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

 

West's failure to notify the TD is an irregularity and Law 23 should be considered. Law 23 says "rub of the green" does not apply if the offender "could have known".

 

If the irregularity is a failure to do something, then is the "time of his irregularity" any time after the original opportunity?

 

By continuing to not notify the TD, West ensured he could lead a small club and at that time he was aware that this could damage the non-offending side (he thought he knew a small club was the only way to defeat the contract). So the TD can award an adjusted score.

[mjj29]

I would award AVE= to EW on both boards and an EBU standard fine of 10% top (=difference between AVE+ and AVE=). The same effect would be to award AVE+ + AVE= + a fine of twice the standard amount.

Only if matchpoints are the final form of scoring are they equivalent. The OP didn't say, of course, or even whether it was matchpoints or imps

[lamford]

The OP didn't say, of course, or even whether it was matchpoints or imps

Silly me. I mistakenly thought that selecting the IMP drop down menu in scoring, and checking that "IMP" appeared against scoring in the OP was enough.

[lamford]

West's failure to notify the TD is an irregularity and Law 23 should be considered. Law 23 says "rub of the green" does not apply if the offender "could have known".

I agree with the first sentence, but I would argue that for him to have committed an infraction he has to have received information about the board he is playing, in which case any penalty clearly applies to that board, or about a board he is due to play, in which case the penalty is applied to that board. He did not receive any UI about this board, so has not committed any infraction relating to it. If he failed to count his cards on this board, you would surely not punish him on another board!

 

And he could not have "known" that the infraction, if there was one on this board, would work to his benefit. It was an absolute miracle that the remark he overheard on another board led to a successful lead on this board. Not even Mystic Meg would have guessed that.

[blackshoe]

I do not think Law 23 applies here. I am surprised that everyone seems to be ignoring Law 72B1.

[lamford]

I do not think Law 23 applies here. I am surprised that everyone seems to be ignoring Law 72B1.

I agree that he infringed law 72B1 on the other board, but not on this one. He did not receive any UI about this hand, so has committed no infraction on this board.

[blackshoe]

The infraction lay in not calling the TD "forthwith". The fact that he was mistaken about to which board the information he had pertained does not seem to me to be relevant to the requirement to call the TD.

[RMB1]

Only if matchpoints are the final form of scoring are they equivalent. The OP didn't say, of course, or even whether it was matchpoints or imps

If the final form of scoring is conversion to victory points then I would need to decide between the different averages for the boards and the size of the fine.

[RMB1]

West's failure to notify the TD is an irregularity and Law 23 should be considered.  Law 23 says "rub of the green" does not apply if the offender "could have known".

I agree with the first sentence, but I would argue that for him to have committed an infraction he has to have received information about the board he is playing, in which case any penalty clearly applies to that board, or about a board he is due to play, in which case the penalty is applied to that board. ...

I think it would be illegal for the player to lead small from AKQJx on every board in the session in the hope that this was the board that the underlead works.

 

The laws do not allow the use of unauthorised information to suggest a call or play (Law 16A3). There is no restriction in Law 16A as to the source or relevance of the unauthorised information. There is no penalty defined in Law 16A3, but the lead of the small club on the first board was against that law.

 

The player should have notified the TD when he heard the remark, when he picked up ♣AKQJx and knew the information might be relevant, and when he was on lead (and at all points in between). Instead he made a play that was based on extraneous information in an attempt to gain - he hoped to see the contract defeated, even if he did not expect the score to stand.