Inferences from kibitzers?

[barmar]

This article reproduces an article from 1996 that won a BOLS Bridge Press Award. It includes an anecdote about John Crawford being in a grand slam with trumps AKQTxxx opposite a singleton, and no side losers. He finessed the 10 because the kibitzers were watching him intensely -- he reasoned that if the slam was cold on the simple play of trumps from the top the kibitzers would have left.

 

Isn't this illegal? Interest level of spectators is surely extraneous information, since it's not listed as authorized in 16A. Law 76 also prohibits kibitzers from reacting to the play, but some things are unconscious (it's hard to fein interest in a boring hand).

[trevahound]

I had this happen in a club game a few years ago. Last board of the night, some tables were already finished, and 3-4 kibbitzers gathered behind me in 6♥. The contract was purely on picking up trumps, missing Kxxx. I was 95% sure from folks continuing to watch after the auction that the heart K was singleton offsides (doubleton or more off, what's to watch? coming down -- I had all the spots -- what's to watch?). I too was very curious if this is AI or UI. I intentionally took the hook, being unsure of what was proper, and knowing I'd play it that way any earlier round, but I shopped the decision later and got mixed answers. Good question!

[JLOGIC]

haha when I saw the title of this thread I came to post the Crawford hand.

[blackshoe]

I think that information from kibitzers would be unauthorized under Law 16A, but that law did not exist in its current form prior to the current version of the laws, so I'm not so sure an argument couldn't be made that it would have been authorized, or at least not unauthorized, under previous laws.

[iviehoff]

Information from the audience is Law 16C, not Law 16A. This is not the kind of UI you have to bend over backwards to avoid taking advantage of, rather you call the director and should get an artificial adjusted score if the board cannot be played, robably Ave+ both ways.

 

If a player can get useful information from mere fact that the audience hasn't gone home, it is a good reason why there should never be an audience perceptible to the players in serious levels of bridge.

[ahydra]

As a player, can one ask kibitzers to leave the table? I personally don't like being kibitzed, and if they can end up passing us UI as well then I'd definitely rather have them go elsewhere.

 

ahydra

[Zelandakh]

As a player, can one ask kibitzers to leave the table? I personally don't like being kibitzed, and if they can end up passing us UI as well then I'd definitely rather have them go elsewhere.

There was another thread here recently on this issue. I think the general advice would first be politely to ask them to leave and, if they refuse, to speak with the TD about it. It is not a matter of Law so if they choose to persist it might even come down to the regulations of the local club.

[Phil]

Information from the audience is Law 16C, not Law 16A. This is not the kind of UI you have to bend over backwards to avoid taking advantage of, rather you call the director and should get an artificial adjusted score if the board cannot be played, robably Ave+ both ways.

 

If a player can get useful information from mere fact that the audience hasn't gone home, it is a good reason why there should never be an audience perceptible to the players in serious levels of bridge.

 

So what if the heart suit (using Crawford's case) could be picked up by playing for the drop of the Jack and the kibitzers were there just because it was the last board?

[RMB1]

So what if the heart suit (using Crawford's case) could be picked up by playing for the drop of the Jack and the kibitzers were there just because it was the last board?

 

Declarer should call the TD as soon as he has the "information" that the presence of the kibitzers means he should finesse on the first round of the suit. Declarer will tell the TD what he thinks he knows - away from the table. IMO the TD should allow play to continue - telling the player to play the hand using any extraneous information he thinks he has. If declarer gains by taking an unusual line then TD should adjust to AVE+/AVE+ (Law 16C2c).

[Zelandakh]

I see a problem with your ruling Robin. Say we are in a slam. The line suggested by the kibitzer(s) allows us to make an overtrick for 100%. The normal line is making and would have scored 90%. Taking the unusual line now costs declarer whether it works or not, so telling the player to use the information cannot be right in this case if the result of damage is AVE+.

[RMB1]

I see a problem with your ruling Robin. Say we are in a slam. The line suggested by the kibitzer(s) allows us to make an overtrick for 100%. The normal line is making and would have scored 90%. Taking the unusual line now costs declarer whether it works or not, so telling the player to use the information cannot be right in this case if the result of damage is AVE+.

 

Sorry.

Law 16C2c calls for the TD to award an adjusted score - not necessarily an artificial adjusted score.

 

I am not sure I can give 60/60 - without recourse to Law 12C1d. It looks as if I should give equity at a point before the extraneous information may have affected the result. This could be a weighted score and may be split because I would weight sympathetically for each side separately (both sides are non-offending).

[blackshoe]

Information from the audience is Law 16C, not Law 16A. This is not the kind of UI you have to bend over backwards to avoid taking advantage of, rather you call the director and should get an artificial adjusted score if the board cannot be played, robably Ave+ both ways.

I believe you're thinking of Law 16B, which deals with UI from partner. 16A simply lists the sources of authorized information — and kibitzers are not included. Given that fact, if information is received from a kibitzer, it is unauthorized, and yes, should be handled via Law 16C. In this case, since the UI appeared during the play, 16C2{c} applies, the director allows completion of the board, and if he judges the UI affected the result, awards an assigned adjusted score, not an artificial one.

[blackshoe]

As a player, can one ask kibitzers to leave the table? I personally don't like being kibitzed, and if they can end up passing us UI as well then I'd definitely rather have them go elsewhere.

 

ahydra

 

There was another thread here recently on this issue. I think the general advice would first be politely to ask them to leave and, if they refuse, to speak with the TD about it. It is not a matter of Law so if they choose to persist it might even come down to the regulations of the local club.

The answer to "can one ask kibitzers to leave the table" lies first in any regulations that may be in place. For example the ACBL General CoC says "No player has the right to bar all kibitzers from his table, but each player has the right to bar one individual (excluding tournament officials, the recorder or his designee(s), or officially approved members of the press) from kibitzing play at his table during a session without assigning cause. (A traveling player may bar only one individual during a session without assigning cause). Any kibitzer may be barred for cause by the Tournament Director." If there is no regulation Law 76A1 specifies that spectators are under the control of the director, and Law 81C1 gives him the authority and responsibility to ensure the orderly progress of the game.

[blackshoe]

Declarer should call the TD as soon as he has the "information" that the presence of the kibitzers means he should finesse on the first round of the suit. Declarer will tell the TD what he thinks he knows - away from the table. IMO the TD should allow play to continue - telling the player to play the hand using any extraneous information he thinks he has. If declarer gains by taking an unusual line then TD should adjust to AVE+/AVE+ (Law 16C2c).

 

 

I see a problem with your ruling Robin. Say we are in a slam. The line suggested by the kibitzer(s) allows us to make an overtrick for 100%. The normal line is making and would have scored 90%. Taking the unusual line now costs declarer whether it works or not, so telling the player to use the information cannot be right in this case if the result of damage is AVE+.

 

 

Sorry.

Law 16C2c calls for the TD to award an adjusted score - not necessarily an artificial adjusted score.

 

I am not sure I can give 60/60 - without recourse to Law 12C1d. It looks as if I should give equity at a point before the extraneous information may have affected the result. This could be a weighted score and may be split because I would weight sympathetically for each side separately (both sides are non-offending).

I think it is incumbent on the director to inform the player whether the information he (thinks he) has is authorized or unauthorized, and also tell him what Law 16C2{c} says. He should not advise the player to ignore the information, nor should he advise him to use it.