Extraneous information (EBU)

[gnasher]

If you tell me you'll cancel the board if the UI affects the result, I'll bid the slam and leave you to decide whether it was an abuse of UI. Why should I allow myself to be restrained by UI that is someone else's fault?

Because, as Ed points out, Law 16A3 does restrain you.

 

If you made an abnormal bid of 6NT, knowing that your values were inadequate, that would clearly be based on the UI, and only on the UI. It would be reasonable to both adjust the score and fine you.

 

That's a bit different from choosing a defence which plays declarer to be at the top of his range. Such a defence might be based partly or wholly on legitimate factors such as card-reading, declarer's demeanour, or guesswork.

[VixTD]

I imagine North at table 6 had said something like "It was a [maximum of] 32-point slam and I just had to go for it" and the way he said it suggested to table 5 that the slam had made.

 

I really thought this was on the boundary between what would be declared unplayable and what would be considered possibly retrievable. I certainly didn't want to look at the hands and then tell them I thought it was playable, that would have created more UI. Then again it's only really by looking at the hands that I can judge whether the information could interfere with normal play (L16C2).

 

Suppose they had played it and EW found themselves with a decision to make: they could play South for a maximum and try to hold them to eleven tricks, or play them for a minimum and try to bag three for the defence, but at the small risk of letting declarer make twelve. If they play declarer for a minimum because of the UI and it backfires, do I now award an adjusted score?

 

For interest the other 27 scores were:

 

3 x NT games making 10

18 x NT games making 11

1 x major suit games making 10

1 x major suit games making 11

2 x 6NT making 11

1 x 5NT making 10

1 x 3♣X(E) making 7

 

As an aside, if one or both pairs refuse to play the board, what score do I give them? If a pair refuse to play for no good reason it's normal to give them 0% (made up of Av- and a suitable fine). Here I'd have some sympathy, though. Should I give them 40%?

[ggwhiz]

As an aside, if one or both pairs refuse to play the board,

 

Huh? Seems like playing the board is a heads we win, tails we break even scenario. But it could well happen in Brighton :)

 

Interesting to me in that the extraneous info has been referred to as UI but the manner it was transmitted feels more like AI for both pairs.

 

If it's UI and played in slam -1 who gets what score? Maybe that's the reason to refuse to play it.

 

If it's AI that is obviously a result to be thrown out as well as other possible defensive miscues and I agree with the penalty for the loudmouth.

[blackshoe]

Interesting to me in that the extraneous info has been referred to as UI but the manner it was transmitted feels more like AI for both pairs.

 

If it's UI and played in slam -1 who gets what score? Maybe that's the reason to refuse to play it.

 

If it's AI that is obviously a result to be thrown out as well as other possible defensive miscues and I agree with the penalty for the loudmouth.

It's UI. See Laws 16A1, 16A2, and 16A3.

 

IAs an aside, if one or both pairs refuse to play the board, what score do I give them? If a pair refuse to play for no good reason it's normal to give them 0% (made up of Av- and a suitable fine). Here I'd have some sympathy, though. Should I give them 40%?

Refusal to follow the instructions of the TD rates an immediate disciplinary penalty. If you instruct them to play it, and they refuse, good reason or not, you have to award an artificial adjusted score, and their willful refusal to play the board means they are directly at fault. So they get average minus, their opponents get average plus, and they get a DP. At MPs, the "standard" DP, (see the White Book) is 20% of a top, but you can certainly give them more. If the offense is particularly egregious, I might award a second DP (for arguing with the director, for example).

 

There's a difference between "I don't want to play this hand", or "I don't think we should play this hand", and "I'm not going to play this hand". If they disagree with my ruling, I'll tell them they're entitled to appeal. If they continue to argue, or they outright refuse to play it, see the previous paragraph.

[iviehoff]

Because, as Ed points out, Law 16A3 does restrain you.

 

If you made an abnormal bid of 6NT, knowing that your values were inadequate, that would clearly be based on the UI, and only on the UI. It would be reasonable to both adjust the score and fine you.

Nothing is reasonable that gives me a score less than A+, when correct application of the law in the first place assigns me an artificial adjusted score of A+. Since both me and my opponent are due a score of at least A+, there simply isn't a table score that is acceptable to both of us. If the Director is going to make up the laws and say "I'll cancel the board if UI affects the result..." I shall make sure that either I satisfy his conditions for cancelling the board or get a good score, relying on my opponent to be unhappy with the latter outcome.

[Trinidad]

It's UI. See Laws 16A1, 16A2, and 16A3.

That's true, but it is not the same as what we normally call UI, which is UI from partner.

 

In this case, you don't need to "bend over backwards to avoid taking advantage". That is also entirely fair, since your side is not at fault.

 

If, at some point, you need to make a choice and the UI points left, you can tell the TD that left and right are both options, but that the UI tells you to turn left. The TD cannot tell you that you are not allowed to turn left (like he can when the UI comes from partner). Instead, he will conclude that the UI affected the board, must stop the play and award the AS.

 

This AS, BTW, doesn't mean 60-60. It could mean that the defense gets the score for slam down 1, whereas the declaring side gets the game. Usually this will be closer to 80-80, but on another board it could be 55-55 or even 20-90.

 

Rik

[gnasher]

Nothing is reasonable that gives me a score less than A+, when correct application of the law in the first place assigns me an artificial adjusted score of A+. Since both me and my opponent are due a score of at least A+, there simply isn't a table score that is acceptable to both of us. If the Director is going to make up the laws and say "I'll cancel the board if UI affects the result..." I shall make sure that either I satisfy his conditions for cancelling the board or get a good score, relying on my opponent to be unhappy with the latter outcome.

Are you sure it's not you who is making up the Laws?

 

Law 16C2 provides the Director with two relevant options:

c): Have you play the board; determine whether the UI affected the result; if it did, adjust the score.

d): Award A+ to both sides without the board's being played.

 

It is perfectly legal for him to choose (c) rather than (d). In fact, the order in which the oprions are presented might suggest that he should if possible choose (c) over (d).

[Trinidad]

It is perfectly legal for him to choose (c) rather than (d). In fact, the order in which the oprions are presented might suggest that he should if possible choose (c) over (d).

It might indeed suggest that. However, I think that a TD should strive towards a result that is "as normal as possible". After all, the aim of the Laws is to rectify, not to punish (or to reward, I will add). That should define the priorities.

 

In this case, the TD can expect that he needs to give an AS anyway when he allows the board to be played. Since the UI is substantial and we seem to be dealing with a slam hand, he can anticipate that this AS might well be extreme: something like slam making for one side and slam going down for the other side (neither side is at fault). This would lead to close to a top for both pairs (95-95) and it should lead to an unhappy TD: He could have gotten a much more normal result if he would have decided to give 60-60 to begin with.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Nothing is reasonable that gives me a score less than A+, when correct application of the law in the first place assigns me an artificial adjusted score of A+. Since both me and my opponent are due a score of at least A+, there simply isn't a table score that is acceptable to both of us. If the Director is going to make up the laws and say "I'll cancel the board if UI affects the result..." I shall make sure that either I satisfy his conditions for cancelling the board or get a good score, relying on my opponent to be unhappy with the latter outcome.

Perhaps you should read law 16C before you go putting your foot in your mouth.

[blackshoe]

Instead, he will conclude that the UI affected the board, must stop the play and award the AS.

The first eight words of Law 16C2{c} are "allow completion of the play of the board", so "must stop the play" is incorrect. Also, once a result is obtained, should the TD not strive to award an assigned adjusted score? Note that 16C2{c} does not specify an artificial adjusted score.

 

 

This AS, BTW, doesn't mean 60-60. It could mean that the defense gets the score for slam down 1, whereas the declaring side gets the game. Usually this will be closer to 80-80, but on another board it could be 55-55 or even 20-90.

As I said above, I think an assigned adjusted score is appropriate. If, however, you award an artificial adjusted score, Law 12C2 specifies how you do that, and I don't see how any of your suggested alternatives is in accordance with that law.

[iviehoff]

Perhaps you should read law 16C before you go putting your foot in your mouth.

Of course I have read it. The director could rule under 16C2d to give me A+, so that is going to be my default position, if I feel that I haev been disadvantaged by being made to play the hand out. If the UI affects play in any way (wording of 16C2c "if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result"), in which case it must be to the detriment of me or my opponent, then that is what we will be asking for, because in that situation clearly he should have ruled under 16C2d. Thinking about it a bit more carefully, what I should do is not take advantage of the UI in order to claim that "unauthorized information .... affected the result" (16C2c), but rather bend over backwards to avoid taking advantage of it, as then I have the moral high ground to claim that "unauthorized information .... affected the result" and I have been disadvantaged by it. The adjustment should be ont he basis that both sides are non-offending. Unless there is a realistic prospect of the hand being able to be played out without UI affecting the result, he really ought to have ruled under 16C2d, so I will add in Director's Error as an additional factor.

[Trinidad]

The first eight words of Law 16C2{c} are "allow completion of the play of the board", so "must stop the play" is incorrect.

That's correct.

Also, once a result is obtained, should the TD not strive to award an assigned adjusted score? Note that 16C2{c} does not specify an artificial adjusted score.

Yes, he should, which is exactly why he should be reluctant to let the board be played out if the UI is substantial: It may lead to an assigned adjusted score which is effectively leading to an 80-80 result, which -from the TD's point of view- is much worse than 60-60.

As I said above, I think an assigned adjusted score is appropriate. If, however, you award an artificial adjusted score, Law 12C2 specifies how you do that, and I don't see how any of your suggested alternatives is in accordance with that law.

Why not? Both side are non offending. If you end up in a grand depending on a 50-50 guess for a queen where the position of the queen is given by the UI, you will have to give the declaring side the contract and the defense down 1. Declarer can come up with a reason why he would have found the queen and the defense can come up with a reason why he would misguess. This effectively leads to a MP score of 80%-80% on the board.

 

Hence, the TD should not allow for the completion of a board when the UI is substantial.

 

An example of less substantial UI is if someone overhears someone at the other table say: "Everybody in the room would have opened 1NT, but we play a weak NT." It is unlikely that this UI is going to affect the board. And you are sure of it when dealer on the next board opens 1NT.

 

Another example is a spot card that is upside down in the slot where one of the other players says that he saw the suit, but not which spot it was. Just play the hand.

 

But if you overhear that you should or should not bid a slam on the next board, it is hard to imagine that this UI will not affect the result on the board. The TD shouldn't ask the players yo try to play it out.

 

Rik

[gnasher]

Of course I have read it. The director could rule under 16C2d to give me A+, so that is going to be my default position, if I feel that I haev been disadvantaged by being made to play the hand out.

The fact that he could have given A+ using 12C2d doesn't make A+ the default score if he chooes one of his other options under 16C2. It's unusual for the Laws to give the director an apparently free choice between different methods of dealing with a situation, but when they do that means that they genuinely are different, rather than one being subordinate to another. Your belief that you're entitled to at least A+ is simply incorrect.

 

It's true that your position is less advantageous when he chooses 16C2c rather than 16C2d, but equally your position would have been less advantageous if he'd chosen to use 16C2a or 16C2b (supposing that the format allowed this). What matters is whether you have been disadvantaged by receiving the UI.

 

If the UI affects play in any way (wording of 16C2c "if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result"),

There is a difference between affecting play and affecting the result. On this particular deal, the UI might well affect the play in 3NT, but it's unlikely to affect the result. Having gone down the 16C2c route, the director should consider only the effect on the result, relative to the equity that existed before the UI occurred.

 

in which case it must be to the detriment of me or my opponent, then that is what we will be asking for, because in that situation clearly he should have ruled under 16C2d.

Which law says that?

 

Thinking about it a bit more carefully, what I should do is not take advantage of the UI in order to claim that "unauthorized information .... affected the result" (16C2c), but rather bend over backwards to avoid taking advantage of it, as then I have the moral high ground to claim that "unauthorized information .... affected the result" and I have been disadvantaged by it. The adjustment should be ont he basis that both sides are non-offending. Unless there is a realistic prospect of the hand being able to be played out without UI affecting the result, he really ought to have ruled under 16C2d, so I will add in Director's Error as an additional factor.

On this occasion there *was* a realistic prospect of the hand's being played out without UI affecting the result. It's very realistic to expect that South will open the obvious 2NT, North will make the obvious raise to 3NT, West will lead a card that isn't ♥K, and South will make the obvious eleven tricks.

Edited October 17, 2013 by gnasher

[VixTD]

Why not? Both side are non offending. If you end up in a grand depending on a 50-50 guess for a queen where the position of the queen is given by the UI, you will have to give the declaring side the contract and the defense down 1.

That might be true in North America, but the hand was from a Welsh event, so the director could award one side 60% of the making grand slam and 40% of one down, and the other side 60% of one down and 40% of making (law 12C1(a), (c) and (f)).

[jallerton]

That might be true in North America, but the hand was from a Welsh event, so the director could award one side 60% of the making grand slam and 40% of one down, and the other side 60% of one down and 40% of making (law 12C1(a), (c) and (f)).

 

I recall once reading a write-up from a Welsh AC, in which their main comment was "This is Wales!", but I don't think that the Laws you quote make that ruling logical.

 

Although 12c1(f) states that the assigned scores "need not balance", 12c1c states that the weightings should "reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results". If 60% of the grand making + 40% of one down is a fair reflection of what might have happened, then those probabilities should apply to both sides' weightings; otherwise the TD is being inconsistent.

[blackshoe]

Yes, he should, which is exactly why he should be reluctant to let the board be played out if the UI is substantial: It may lead to an assigned adjusted score which is effectively leading to an 80-80 result, which -from the TD's point of view- is much worse than 60-60.

This caught my eye. Why is an 80-80 result "much worse" than a 60-60 result? Why should the TD care at all what it is, so long as it's the result of a correct ruling?

[VixTD]

Although 12c1(f) states that the assigned scores "need not balance", 12c1c states that the weightings should "reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results". If 60% of the grand making + 40% of one down is a fair reflection of what might have happened, then those probabilities should apply to both sides' weightings; otherwise the TD is being inconsistent.

If the TD has to award an assigned adjusted score on a contract in which the outcome of a two-way finesse is uncertain and the key card is equally likely to be in either hand, it would be normal to give both sides 60% of the result which is favourable to the non-offenders and 40% of the other. This reflects the probabilities of the two potential results, and gives the non-offenders a bit extra just to make sure that offenders don't gain from their infraction ("sympathetic weighting", as some like to call it).

 

In this case there are two non-offending sides, so it would be normal to skew the weighting in favour of both sides, and give each side a separate score, as it would in the case of a director's error.

 

However, I discussed this case with other directors at the Autumn Congress at the weekend and was told it would be normal to give an artificial adjusted score (presumably of 60%-60%) if the players attempted to finish the board but it turned out that the extraneous information affected the play.

[RMB1]

However, I discussed this case with other directors at the Autumn Congress at the weekend ...

 

When I saw "Autumn Congress Final ruling" I assumed this was the last of a number of rulings from VixTD's day at the Autumn Congress. But it was a one-off topic (by a player!)

[WellSpyder]

When I saw "Autumn Congress Final ruling" I assumed this was the last of a number of rulings from VixTD's day at the Autumn Congress. But it was a one-off topic (by a player!)

Your interpretation would have been headed "Autumn Congress final ruling" not "Autumn Congress Final ruling" :)

[jallerton]

If the TD has to award an assigned adjusted score on a contract in which the outcome of a two-way finesse is uncertain and the key card is equally likely to be in either hand, it would be normal to give both sides 60% of the result which is favourable to the non-offenders and 40% of the other. This reflects the probabilities of the two potential results, and gives the non-offenders a bit extra just to make sure that offenders don't gain from their infraction ("sympathetic weighting", as some like to call it).

 

Yes indeed. This I can justify legally. The TD judges that the player will get the 2-way finesse right somewhere between 40% and 60% of the time. In his estimate of the "probability of potential results" he decides to use either the bottom or the top end of that range, depending on which end favours the non-offending side.

 

In this case there are two non-offending sides, so it would be normal to skew the weighting in favour of both sides, and give each side a separate score, as it would in the case of a director's error.

 

It might be normal, but I just don't think it's legal under the 2007 Laws (though I think this approach was legal under the 1997 Laws).

 

However, I discussed this case with other directors at the Autumn Congress at the weekend and was told it would be normal to give an artificial adjusted score (presumably of 60%-60%) if the players attempted to finish the board but it turned out that the extraneous information affected the play.

 

If it's an artificial assigned score and both sides are non-offending, then I agree that Av+ to both sides is what the Law requires.