I'm glad I bid on over 4S

[sanst]

(Be aware that both sides at table 1 should be considered "not at fault"!)

I think that is a crucial point. We don't know the hands, but N might have a decent hand for his 5♥ bid. If you decide on 4♠= for both sides, because N's bid might have been inspired by the remark, you give NS a lousy score for a fault which is not theirs. IMHO you should award both sides a score which could have been obtained without the EI, that's either Avg+ for both or 4♠= for EW and 5♥x-1 for NS. Wether the obtained result (5♠x-1) is due to some unwise action on E's part, is also dependent on the actual hands and might also been taken into account when adjusting the score.

 

If the remark was indeed about another board, I would let the result stand. We always get information on boards, if only for the declarer asking rather loudly for a certain card from the dummy, the dummy being slightly deaf.

[pran]

Many years ago I had a bidding problem whether to go for slam or just land in game.

 

This was in a barometer event so everybody played the same boards during the same round, it was our last board in the round, and while trying to make my decision I suddenly could not avoid hearing from a discussion at another table (where they had completed their round) some remark either that slam was cold or that slam was down one (I no longer remember which it was).

 

The point is that this remark completely disturbed my thoughts to the degree that I was unable to reach any sane decision. This I told the director who agreed to award us Ave+/Ave+.

 

I still think that this is the correct ruling: The extraneous remark had ruined our possibility to carry out a normal auction and the board was destroyed beyond repair.

 

Whether the remark related to this same board or an entirely different board is completely irrelevant, the interference with other players' considerations (in this case mine) is exactly the same.

[aguahombre]

Many years ago I had a bidding problem whether to go for slam or just land in game.

 

This was in a barometer event so everybody played the same boards during the same round, it was our last board in the round, and while trying to make my decision I suddenly could not avoid hearing from a discussion at another table (where they had completed their round) some remark either that slam was cold or that slam was down one (I no longer remember which it was).

 

The point is that this remark completely disturbed my thoughts to the degree that I was unable to reach any sane decision. This I told the director who agreed to award us Ave+/Ave+.

 

I still think that this is the correct ruling: The extraneous remark had ruined our possibility to carry out a normal auction and the board was destroyed beyond repair.

 

Whether the remark related to this same board or an entirely different board is completely irrelevant, the interference with other players' considerations (in this case mine) is exactly the same.

In your anecdote, the ruling seems to be correct; play stopped because the TD agreed with your contention it was unplayable.

 

If the TD, however, had let play resume, he then would have to determine whether the EI influenced the result. I don't think he can go back to a+ a+. But, you would still be right that the exact board which was being discussed is irrelevant --the overheard remark was the EI and it either influenced the result on this board or it didn't.

[nige1]

Whether the remark related to this same board or an entirely different board is completely irrelevant, the interference with other players' considerations (in this case mine) is exactly the same.

IMO whether the remark is about a board played in this competition should be relevant to the severity of PP that the director imposes on the loud-mouth.

This thread and Lambert's thread -- Are they perhaps related?

[jallerton]

Do you? Or should the principle be "when in doubt let the TD figure out," so that you should call him anyway?

 

If I call the TD every time I hear any remark from another table, the TD will be very busy and there will be an awful lot of wasted TD time. If other players do the same, then the EBU will need to employ a lot more TDs.

 

My practical (but apparently illegal) policy is to only call the TD when I judge that the EI I have received might conceivably affect my actions on a hand I may be yet to play.

[aguahombre]

If I call the TD every time I hear any remark from another table, the TD will be very busy and there will be an awful lot of wasted TD time. If other players do the same, then the EBU will need to employ a lot more TDs.

Lord forbid if the TD's would be forced to crack down on violations in order to keep the same number of TD's.

[blackshoe]

If I call the TD every time I hear any remark from another table, the TD will be very busy and there will be an awful lot of wasted TD time. If other players do the same, then the EBU will need to employ a lot more TDs.

 

My practical (but apparently illegal) policy is to only call the TD when I judge that the EI I have received might conceivably affect my actions on a hand I may be yet to play.

The TD's job, or a large part of it, is to make rulings. If that's what he's doing, I don't see how one can consider his time "wasted". Put another way: so he's busy; so what? It is not in the nature of the job that the TD should expect to sit around doing nothing for several hours.

 

It's not up to players to judge that kind of thing, so yes, I'd say for a player to make that judgement is illegal.

 

Lord forbid if the TD's would be forced to crack down on violations in order to keep the same number of TD's.

Indeed.

[pran]

In your anecdote, the ruling seems to be correct; play stopped because the TD agreed with your contention it was unplayable.

 

It is no anecdote, it is a true story from real life something like 20 or 30 years ago

[aguahombre]

It is no anecdote, it is a true story from real life something like 20 or 30 years ago

On my planet, anecdotes are true stories.

[pran]

On my planet, anecdotes are true stories.

Fair enough, but my Oxford says: short amusing or interesting usually true story.

 

(There is an anecdote about Haakon VII (Norwegian beloved King 1905-1957) who was asked if a particular story was true and answered: No, but that is a good story, I must use it sometime!)

[barmar]

Fair enough, but my Oxford says: short amusing or interesting usually true story.

Apparently context dictates. My dictionary has two definitions. One says it's a story about a real incident or person, the second says"an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay". So he meant the first type, you thought he meant the second.

[aguahombre]

To be perfectly clear, which I apparently rarely am: We will be in a thread discussion/debate regarding some incident ---real or not. A poster will contribute a similar situation from his/her experience to be used for comparison/contrast or just plain interest.

 

If I believe they are true I call them anecdotes --seems like as good a word as any. If not, I call them hypothetical if they add, or something less polite if they hijack.

[jallerton]

The TD's job, or a large part of it, is to make rulings. If that's what he's doing, I don't see how one can consider his time "wasted". Put another way: so he's busy; so what? It is not in the nature of the job that the TD should expect to sit around doing nothing for several hours.

 

It's not up to players to judge that kind of thing, so yes, I'd say for a player to make that judgement is illegal.

 

When you play, do you ever hear anything that is being said at another table, Ed?

 

Suppose that you hear Mr X at another table saying "small heart". You have UI about a board you may be yet to play: that Mr X is declaring a hand, and that his partner has at least one heart on an unknown board. Do you call the TD? If not, you are making a judgement which is illegal (your words).

[blackshoe]

When you play, do you ever hear anything that is being said at another table, Ed?

 

Suppose that you hear Mr X at another table saying "small heart". You have UI about a board you may be yet to play: that Mr X is declaring a hand, and that his partner has at least one heart on an unknown board. Do you call the TD? If not, you are making a judgement which is illegal (your words).

Very rarely. And yes, if I choose not to call the director in that situation, I'm wrong.

[barmar]

Very rarely. And yes, if I choose not to call the director in that situation, I'm wrong.

Must be nice to play in bridge clubs/tourneys where there's so much space between tables that you can't hear all the little bits of spoken instruction. The rest of us play in the real world. And as someone said above, if we called the TD for everything we overheard, they'd never have time for real rulings.

[pran]

Must be nice to play in bridge clubs/tourneys where there's so much space between tables that you can't hear all the little bits of spoken instruction. The rest of us play in the real world. And as someone said above, if we called the TD for everything we overheard, they'd never have time for real rulings.

In my part of the (real) world we frequently have tables (at club Level) so close that you cannot everywhere walk easily between them. And the players are used to keep their voices low, so overhearing remarks at other tables is seldom any problem.

 

Maybe the players in your world should be trained in adapting to the local acoustics?

[blackshoe]

Must be nice to play in bridge clubs/tourneys where there's so much space between tables that you can't hear all the little bits of spoken instruction. The rest of us play in the real world. And as someone said above, if we called the TD for everything we overheard, they'd never have time for real rulings.

Passive-aggressive insults aside, I've had players tell me we don't have time for any rulings.

[nige1]

In my part of the (real) world we frequently have tables (at club Level) so close that you cannot everywhere walk easily between them. And the players are used to keep their voices low, so overhearing remarks at other tables is seldom any problem. Maybe the players in your world should be trained in adapting to the local acoustics?

Most of the clubs, in which I play are like Pran's. I'm rather deaf but other players complain that they can overhear conversations at other tables. It rarely causes a problem because they do their best to ignore what they hear. It mist be hard, however, never to take subconscious advantage. An improvement might be disclosure rules that involved pointing to written explanations -- as previously suggested :)

[WellSpyder]

In my part of the (real) world we frequently have tables (at club Level) so close that you cannot everywhere walk easily between them. And the players are used to keep their voices low, so overhearing remarks at other tables is seldom any problem.

Once again I am amazed at what some people claim to experience when playing bridge. For most of us, hearing some remarks at other tables is a reality several times a session. Fortunately it is indeed seldom a problem, because, like jallerton, we use common sense in deciding whether or not to report it. Knowing that there is a hand somewhere in the set of boards in play in which one of the players has 12-14 points, or on which a heart is led from dummy at some point, probably isn't going to help you very much when you have no idea which hand it is. Perhaps partly because you know it won't help, it is also easy to forget this particular piece of information. Knowing that a grand slam makes on a finesse on a hand somewhere in the set of boards in play may be more of a problem and more difficult to forget when a hand comes around on which it might be relevant.

[gordontd]

Once again I am amazed at what some people claim to experience when playing bridge. For most of us, hearing some remarks at other tables is a reality several times a session. Fortunately it is indeed seldom a problem, because, like jallerton, we use common sense in deciding whether or not to report it. Knowing that there is a hand somewhere in the set of boards in play in which one of the players has 12-14 points, or on which a heart is led from dummy at some point, probably isn't going to help you very much when you have no idea which hand it is. Perhaps partly because you know it won't help, it is also easy to forget this particular piece of information. Knowing that a grand slam makes on a finesse on a hand somewhere in the set of boards in play may be more of a problem and more difficult to forget when a hand comes around on which it might be relevant.

One of the regulars when I ran the Young Chelsea was a woman in her late 90s who had been a good player and as she had become deaf her (usually correct and concise) analysis became louder and often spoiled the boards for others. My favourite of hers, for getting the most information into a short sentence, was when she said loudly to one of her husbands: "Darling, if you'd pinned the ten of spades you'd have made your six clubs"!

[barmar]

I don't think anyone is claiming that overhearing stuff like this is never a problem. Just that most of the random chatter, including alert explanations and hearing declarers calling for cards from dummy, is not easily related to any specific boards. The cases that do make it hard to play a hand unbiased are usually easy to recognize, and that's when the TD should be called.

[nige1]

As well as the problem of accidental acquisition and subconscious usage of overheard information,. there is the theoretical risk that (heaven forbid!) an immoral player might deliberately eavesdrop in the hope of gaining illegal advantage. IMO, rule-simplification would reduce such dangers.

[gordontd]

As well as the problem of accidental acquisition and subconscious usage of overheard information,. there is the theoretical risk that (heaven forbid!) an immoral player might deliberately eavesdrop in the hope of gaining illegal advantage. IMO, rule-simplification would reduce such dangers.

Which rule would you simplify, and how would it avoid such dangers?

[nige1]

Which rule would you simplify, and how would it avoid such dangers?

The law would stipulate that you "announce" the meaning of partner's calls. If possible, you would do this by pointing to the relevant explanation on your card/supplementary notes (which would then be AI to you). Also, each table would be supplied with a card containing a matrix of common meanings, to which you could point. You would have the right to switch-off opponents' "announcements"

 

This change wouldn't "avoid" the danger of disturbing other tables (for instance, an opponent might have poor eyesight); but it would "reduce" it. It would simplify the rules, for example: it would encourage players to complete convention-cards; there would be fewer misexplanaitons; there would no longer be any need for local alert regulations; It would remove confusion about what is alertable -- current alert regulations cause unnecessary infractions; IMO, it would speed up the game -- although others might disagree.

[barmar]

Maybe we should enhance the bidding box. Instead of just one Double card, we could have separate Takeout Double and Penalty Double cards. Replace the STOP card with Weak, Intermediate, and Strong Jump cards.

 

:) :) :)