UI from another table again

[Cyberyeti]

My partner is N and receives the boards from the S at the next table. It's a movement with 3 board rounds where you have 2 on the table and then play the board the next table played first.

 

Partner noticed that the board was passed REALLY fast.

 

First question: Should he share this so everybody has the same info ? Should he call the director ?

 

Second question: Partner opens 1♥, you have one of those hands with 4 spades and longer clubs right on the borderline strengthwise for 1♠/2♣, if you are made aware of this, what is your ethical position (given that if the hand was passed out at the other table, 1♠ is suggested).

[pran]

My partner is N and receives the boards from the S at the next table. It's a movement with 3 board rounds where you have 2 on the table and then play the board the next table played first.

 

Partner noticed that the board was passed REALLY fast.

 

First question: Should he share this so everybody has the same info ? Should he call the director ?

 

Second question: Partner opens 1♥, you have one of those hands with 4 spades and longer clubs right on the borderline strengthwise for 1♠/2♣, if you are made aware of this, what is your ethical position (given that if the hand was passed out at the other table, 1♠ is suggested).

With barometer movements we usually do not pass boards directly between the tables, instead a player brings the just played board to an exchange table and takes the next board from there.

 

When we have the "luxury" we some times have helpers that walks around in the room with the boards and exchanges boards at the tables when called.

[Vampyr]

With barometer movements we usually do not pass boards directly between the tables, instead a player brings the just played board to an exchange table and takes the next board from there.

 

When we have the "luxury" we some times have helpers that walks around in the room with the boards and exchanges boards at the tables when called.

 

Wow thIs is not even tangential to the question being asked. But I do wonder why you would take each board to an entire other table when you can just get it passed by the table next to you.

 

Anyway, most people hold a passed-out board for a little while before passing it. This didn’t happen, so... you need to call the director, who may well cancel the board and caution the people at the next table. Probably the person to call would be the person who received the board very fast, if this was not noticed by the other players. If this person speaks to the director away from the table, the director may board to be played until such time as that player felt that he could not proceed due to his possession of UI.

[PeterAlan]

Wow thIs is not even tangential to the question being asked.

Pran's comment was presumably intended for the other thread on UI from another table, which had developed a sub-thread on barometer events.

[Cyberyeti]

As it happens the board was not passed out, it was 1-3 bids and a trick 1 claim for a flat board and there was no damage, but I was trying to work out what the situation was if it had been a passout. Should it practically matter if the person who noticed obviously did not have a pass ? (he was looking at 7 solid hearts and an ace) so knew it wasn't a passout.

[barmar]

I don't think the player who noticed that the board was passed quickly should say anything. Everyone at the table can probably tell this by themselves, there's little point in emphasizing it. And as long as everyone bids normally, there shouldn't be a problem.

[pescetom]

My partner is N and receives the boards from the S at the next table. It's a movement with 3 board rounds where you have 2 on the table and then play the board the next table played first.

 

Partner noticed that the board was passed REALLY fast.

 

If the movement is as stated then surely it would be more appropriate that we play our two initial boards and then we ask the other table to pass their first played board? And the others don't pass it until asked to do so. If the Director enforced this then there would be very limited risk of UI in either direction.

[blackshoe]

Law 16D1: When a player accidentally receives extraneous information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins (see also Law 13A), the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information.

Here, a player has extraneous information from the speed with which the board was passed. That's not a circumstance in the list of examples, but it is a list of examples; it's not exhaustive. This law doesn't really give him a choice. He should call the director as soon as he gets the board. "Should" here means not doing it is an infraction. A player who thinks "maybe I should just keep my mouth shut and it won't be a problem" is not thinking clearly.

 

Law 16D2: If the Director (my emphasis -- ER) considers that the information would likely interfere with normal play he may, before any call has been made:

(a) adjust the players’ positions at the table, if the type of contest and scoring permit, so that the player with information about one hand will hold that hand;

(b) if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for those contestants;

© allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that the extraneous information affected the result;

(d) award an adjusted score (for team play see Law 86B).

Note that it's the Director, not the players, who gets to make this decision, which is the reason for my last comment in the first paragraph.

 

The downside to strictly following these laws, as has been alluded to upthread, is that now all four players are aware, whether they were before or not, of the problem. But that is not the original player's problem. A player may come up with several reasons why they think ignoring Law 16D is justified; the player is wrong, it is not justified or justifiable.

 

If the player does not call the director, and no problem arises, so that the director never finds out about it, well, the player may feel "no harm, no foul", but again, he's wrong. If something goes awry and the director does find out about it, he'll have to deal as best he can with the problem as presented to him, but he should, in addition, counsel all four players to call the director when they have extraneous information about a board. The player(s) who originally recognized the problem and did not follow the law should be given a PP — in a club game, for a first offense, a warning. In a tournament, or for a second offense in a club game, a "standard" PP.

 

Note: there is no "standard" PP in the law book; the size of a PP is at the discretion of the TD. At least some, if not all, RAs do specify a "standard" PP. In the cases of which I'm aware, that's a recommendation, not an instruction, but it's worth knowing what your RA recommends, and a club TD should decide whether to use that standard or his own, but he should IMO set one, and stick to it.

[Cyberyeti]

Once the player notices and correctly calls the TD, if the TD is told at the table rather than away from it so all players are now aware, is this now AI to everybody ? If I know the hand may well have been passed out (with the implication that my 4216 hand which is a borderline Acol 2/1 may be better commencing with 1♠ as it looks like no game is on as partner must be very minimum), am I allowed to use this ?

[Vampyr]

If the movement is as stated then surely it would be more appropriate that we play our two initial boards and then we ask the other table to pass their first played board? And the others don't pass it until asked to do so. If the Director enforced this then there would be very limited risk of UI in either direction.

 

A movement where you have to ask for boards to be passed would be super aggravating. Suppose you are playing an 8-board Swiss Pairs or Swiss teams match. Asking for 6 boards, one at a time, is truly a ridiculous proposition.

[pran]

A movement where you have to ask for boards to be passed would be super aggravating. Suppose you are playing an 8-board Swiss Pairs or Swiss teams match. Asking for 6 boards, one at a time, is truly a ridiculous proposition.

Do you have any experience or other foundation for this assertion?

[gordontd]

Do you have any experience or other foundation for this assertion?

Well she does play in lots of 7 & 8-board Swiss events and they do rely on tables passing on a board as soon as they've finished it (assuming it wasn't passed out). It would indeed be annoying to have to ask for each board instead of finding it arrive beside your table ready for when you need it.

[pran]

Well she does play in lots of 7 & 8-board Swiss events and they do rely on tables passing on a board as soon as they've finished it (assuming it wasn't passed out). It would indeed be annoying to have to ask for each board instead of finding it arrive beside your table ready for when you need it.

On a point of order: We are discussing barometer movements - all tables play the same set of boards during the same round, not like Howell or Mitchell where different tables play different sets of boards. Barometer has more or less been the standard here for more than 40 years now.

 

We want as little communication between the tables as possible so no boards are normally passed directly between tables during a round. A pile of each (duplicated) board is kept at an exchange table to which one of the players at a table brings a just completed board fetching the next board to be played at his table. (Occasionally we may have assistants responding to calls from tables and providing exchange of boards.)

 

My experience is that these procedures are fully appreciated and certainly not considered any inconvenience, which in fact direct contact between tables most certainly is.

[Cyberyeti]

On a point of order: We are discussing barometer movements - all tables play the same set of boards during the same round, not like Howell or Mitchell where different tables play different sets of boards. Barometer has more or less been the standard here for more than 40 years now.

 

We want as little communication between the tables as possible so no boards are normally passed directly between tables during a round. A pile of each (duplicated) board is kept at an exchange table to which one of the players at a table brings a just completed board fetching the next board to be played at his table. (Occasionally we may have assistants responding to calls from tables and providing exchange of boards.)

 

My experience is that these procedures are fully appreciated and certainly not considered any inconvenience, which in fact direct contact between tables most certainly is.

 

Swiss teams events are not uncommonly run with all tables playing the same boards here with 4 tables sharing 7 boards for the round (extra copy of 1 so each table has 2 boards).

[pran]

Swiss teams events are not uncommonly run with all tables playing the same boards here with 4 tables sharing 7 boards for the round (extra copy of 1 so each table has 2 boards).

With 4 tables sharing 7 boards we have 2 copies of each board (like you). Each of the 4 playing tables has (normally) only one board at a time. The excess boards are located at the exchange table.

 

Works beautifully with very little disturbance or communication of any kind between the tables, and to everybody's satisfaction.

[blackshoe]

Okay, let me get up out of my chair — give me a minute here — get my walker, trundle over to the exchange table — where is that, by the way? — and oh, wait, go back to my table and get the board we're done with, and then go leave it on the exchange table and pick up the new board, go back to my table, position myself to sit down, sit down, push my walker out of the way, but not too far, I'm going to need it later. Okay, now we can play the next board. What do you mean I picked up the wrong one? Oh, crap. Okay, let me get up out of my chair…

 

Okay, we're not there yet. But we sure seem to be getting there.

[gordontd]

On a point of order: We are discussing barometer movements - all tables play the same set of boards during the same round, not like Howell or Mitchell where different tables play different sets of boards.

The person to whom you replied was talking about Swiss movements, which are a form of Barometer.

[Vampyr]

With 4 tables sharing 7 boards we have 2 copies of each board (like you). Each of the 4 playing tables has (normally) only one board at a time. The excess boards are located at the exchange table.

 

Works beautifully with very little disturbance or communication of any kind between the tables, and to everybody's satisfaction.

 

We get a board from an “exchange table” when we are ahead of the people passing the boards to us. And we return it when we are through.

 

Again, I cannot imagine the annoyance of doing this for every board.

[pran]

Okay, let me get up out of my chair — give me a minute here — get my walker, trundle over to the exchange table — where is that, by the way? — and oh, wait, go back to my table and get the board we're done with, and then go leave it on the exchange table and pick up the new board, go back to my table, position myself to sit down, sit down, push my walker out of the way, but not too far, I'm going to need it later. Okay, now we can play the next board. What do you mean I picked up the wrong one? Oh, crap. Okay, let me get up out of my chair…

 

Okay, we're not there yet. But we sure seem to be getting there.

Fantasy - come and see for yourself before imagining things that just do not happen.

 

As I said: This is 40+ years old routine with which everybody is familiar and satisfied here.

[pran]

The person to whom you replied was talking about Swiss movements, which are a form of Barometer.

So I gathered, but just to avoid any confusion.

[weejonnie]

/* Information from another table is not UI - it is EI. Players do not have to consider logical alternatives etc */

 

Correct procedure

 

"Director please.... can I have a word with you away from the table? ..... I noticed that board #? was completed really quickly at another table."

 

Ruling: OK - Law 16D2 applies

 

2. If the Director considers that the information would likely interfere with normal play he

may, before any call has been made:

(a) adjust the players’ positions at the table, if the type of contest and scoring permit, so that

the player with information about one hand will hold that hand;

(b) if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for those contestants;

© allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he

judges that the extraneous information affected the result;

(d) award an adjusted score (for team play see Law 86B).

 

Pretty sure the TD would apply 16c under these circumstances. Note that it is NOT for the players to say that they can't go on, nor is it an infraction for a player to make use of the EI under Law 16A1d.

[RMB1]

The information is not authorised and nobody can use the information (Law 16A). If the information is used then the TD may have recourse to Law 16D.

[barmar]

Here, a player has extraneous information from the speed with which the board was passed. That's not a circumstance in the list of examples, but it is a list of examples; it's not exhaustive. This law doesn't really give him a choice. He should call the director as soon as he gets the board. "Should" here means not doing it is an infraction. A player who thinks "maybe I should just keep my mouth shut and it won't be a problem" is not thinking clearly.

Do you call the TD every time you take a hand from the board and find that it's already sorted into suit (which often implies either a pass-out or early claim, but sometimes people sort their hand during the post mortem)?

 

I've only done this if it happens a second time in a session, so the TD can remind the player at the next table that they're supposed to shuffle their hand before returning it to the board.

[blackshoe]

Do you call the TD every time you take a hand from the board and find that it's already sorted into suit (which often implies either a pass-out or early claim, but sometimes people sort their hand during the post mortem)?

 

I've only done this if it happens a second time in a session, so the TD can remind the player at the next table that they're supposed to shuffle their hand before returning it to the board.

I haven't had it happen lately. I've had hands that appear to have been poorly shuffled. I didn't call the director. I also didn't waste time trying to figure out what the sequences of cards in the hand might signify.

[pescetom]

/* Information from another table is not UI - it is EI. Players do not have to consider logical alternatives etc */

...

nor is it an infraction for a player to make use of the EI under Law 16A1d.

 

 

The information is not authorised and nobody can use the information (Law 16A). If the information is used then the TD may have recourse to Law 16D.

 

Can someone clarify further?

 

Looking at Law 16A1, the only element I can see that might allow the use of this EI is 16A1c:

 

A. Players’ Use of Information

1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:

....

© it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following) or

(d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.

 

It arises from 16D and is not specified to be unauthorized, so it may be used.

I can't see how A1d can be applied directly to information deriving (at least in part) from legal procedures without first evaluating preclusion of use by applying A1c.

 

This is all a bit circular. If the intention was to authorize such use then it would certainly have been better to specify this in 16D.