[Xiaolongnu]

Table result +2 NS 680

---

Before the board was started, North called the Director and consulted the Director whether the board should be scrapped as all four players at his table have heard the comment by the previous pair who played the board. "6♥ makes, 7♦X would have been a good sacrifice." The Director considered the matter to be under L16C2c and allowed the board to be played and later decided to adjust the result to A5050.

Please comment on my wisdom or stupidity.

My considerations were: (North is a lot more experienced than his partner and opponents and a trained Director.)

1. North claimed that he bid 4♥ as he is worried about "using UI", and as there was no 5♦ attempted sacrifice, which might have been influenced by the UI, the slam was missed as a result. He insisted that the ruling should have been A6060 as they were no way at fault and he should not have been put in such a dilemma that whatever he does will make him guilty of some UI incident.
2. I agree that pertaining to the incident of hearing the extra information he was no way at fault. However, I would say that he and his partner are primarily responsible for their own cards. I was considering letting the result stand.
3. I am also not sure whether UI from other sources are really "used" the same way as UI from partner, after all, L16B1a is highly specific in mentioning "partner" on many occasions.
4. I do realize however that there does not seem to be any law reference that directly justifies my exact adjusted result A5050, though it seems suspiciously close to 12C1b wild or gambling action. In fact, what is the law reference that says players are to answer for their own actions at all times?

[TylerE]

Average + for both pairs (16C2d) and PP to the previous table (90B3) IMO, I wouldn't allow the board to be played.

Any result of an action taken by players at the 2nd table is immaterial as you, as director, essentially put them in an impossible situation. As both pairs at the 2nd table are the non-offending side, they should be given the benefit of the doubt and not put at any sort of disadvantage. To even suggest a 12C1 ruling at the 2nd table is obscene.

Even if I didn't rule it at the time, I would adjust to A+/+ via a Director's Error ruling (82C)

[Xiaolongnu]

To Tyler: That was my second choice, I was very close to doing that. When would u bring in 16B2c? When would the result stand as opposed to adjusted after this happens?

[axman]

Xiaolongnu, on 2013-November-01, 10:49, said:

Table result +2 NS 680

---

Before the board was started, North called the Director and consulted the Director whether the board should be scrapped as all four players at his table have heard the comment by the previous pair who played the board. "6♥ makes, 7♦X would have been a good sacrifice." The Director considered the matter to be under L16C2c and allowed the board to be played and later decided to adjust the result to A5050.

Please comment on my wisdom or stupidity.

My considerations were: (North is a lot more experienced than his partner and opponents and a trained Director.)

1. North claimed that he bid 4♥ as he is worried about "using UI", and as there was no 5♦ attempted sacrifice, which might have been influenced by the UI, the slam was missed as a result. He insisted that the ruling should have been A6060 as they were no way at fault and he should not have been put in such a dilemma that whatever he does will make him guilty of some UI incident.
2. I agree that pertaining to the incident of hearing the extra information he was no way at fault. However, I would say that he and his partner are primarily responsible for their own cards. I was considering letting the result stand.
3. I am also not sure whether UI from other sources are really "used" the same way as UI from partner, after all, L16B1a is highly specific in mentioning "partner" on many occasions.
4. I do realize however that there does not seem to be any law reference that directly justifies my exact adjusted result A5050, though it seems suspiciously close to 12C1b wild or gambling action. In fact, what is the law reference that says players are to answer for their own actions at all times?

For many years I have been analyzing the principles in this type situation and a myriad of related situations. I have not yet settled upon a resolution of the issues but am confident of these principles [in spite of any conflict of current thinking]:

[a] if the players play the board none should be disadvantaged [nor feel] constrained by L16/L73 regarding the effects of the extraneous information

[b] if the players play the board the score should not be adjusted on account of the effects of the extraneous information

[c] if the board is to be played it must be with the concurrence of the four players (see[b])

[d] the culprits should be identified and be assessed a PP [in the case of an adjusted score the PP should be at least a full board]

I am inclined to believe that for these agreed facts a fair outcome is impossible and that the board should always be ruled unplayable [as in, do not give the players the option to play], requiring adj scores A+/A+ and a PP to the culprits.

With regard to your permitting play with the allowance for indemnity you probably now realize that not only are the players put in an impossible situation but the TD also is in a bad situation. Tyler is on target with L82C.

[campboy]

I wouldn't consider letting them play the board with that much information. Even "6♥ makes" is far too much. As Tyler says, you then give ave+/ave+ and a PP.

[billw55]

TylerE, on 2013-November-01, 11:29, said:

Average + for both pairs (16C2d) and PP to the previous table (90B3) IMO, I wouldn't allow the board to be played.

Agree.

North, having reported the UI and been told to play the board anyway, might as well try to bid normally - perhaps 3♦. But it doesn't matter, the board is spoiled, I can't see a point to playing it.

[ggwhiz]

I'm not at all sure I remember this correctly but believe that a senior director here asked the players to "see" if they could reach a result and was notified by a player early in the auction who said "I can't make an unbiased bid at this point". Looked at his hand nodded sagely and awarded avg+ to both sides with a penalty to the other table. After the opening bid all four players could say that on this one.

These are really rare in my experience but an overheard auction of 1nt - p - 3nt may well survive. I can't remember any being played to completion otherwise.

[blackshoe]

Law 16C2 says the director may "award an adjusted score". In the 16C2{d} case, where the board is not played and no table result was obtained, this will be an artificial adjusted score. In the 16C2{c} case, where a table result was obtained but "unauthorized information may have affected the result" you should strive to award an assigned adjusted score.

I'm not sure I agree with Tyler that the director should go straight to 16C2{d}, but I do agree that if you adjust under that law both pairs should get Average plus.

This is not a "director error" case - a ruling under 16C2{c} may be an error in judgment, but it is not an error in procedure. So 82C does not apply.

In adjudicating this case under Law 16C2{c}, you have to estimate what might have happened had there been no UI. It seems me quite likely that NS would have got to 6♥ and only slightly likely they would have stopped in 4 or 5♥. EW might have got to 5♦, and if NS bid 6♥ over that, might well have sacrificed in 7♦ which NS would almost certainly double. If you're in a weighted score jurisdiction you weight these possibilities and give the overall weighting to both sides. In the ACBL (I don't think anybody else uses Law 12C1{e}) you award both sides "the most favorable result that was likely" absent the UI. In the former case the scores will balance; in the latter they probably won't. That's okay though (Law 12C1{f}).

Law 12C1{d} is available where "the possibilities are numerous or not obvious" — this would allow an artificial adjusted score instead of a weighted score — but I don't think it should be applied here. If it is, though, then average plus to both sides is the appropriate adjustment.

[blackshoe]

I would add that once you rule under 16C2{c} you cannot stop the board and award an ArtAS — you made your choice when you told them to play it, however you worded that instruction. And if you tell them to "see what you can do" with the expectation that they are likely to call you back because the UI gave them a problem, you should have ruled under 16C2{d} in the first place.

In adjudicating these cases, the TD has to make a judgement call as to how likely the UI is to be a problem. I think he should err on the side of caution, so that unless it's pretty clear the UI won't be a problem, he should rule under 16C2{d}. That's just personal opinion, though. Neither the laws nor any of the various regulating authorities, so far as I know in the latter case, have given us any guidance on how to apply our judgement in these cases.

[Cyberyeti]

What do you do when this occurs in a teams setting when the problem is caused by the team mates of one of the pairs at the table ?

[gnasher]

You shouldn't apply any part of 16B, because the information is not "from partner". In particular, NS are not constrained by 16B1a (or 73C). The only constraint on NS is Law 16A3 - "No player may base a call or play on other information".

However, with the auction as it went, both North's and East's actions may have been affected by the UI. Hence the director should now cancel the result under 16C2c. For the sake of an easy life, I would award the artificial adjusted score that they woulld have got under 16C2d. (Edit: But Ed is right that this is illegal.)

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-November-01, 13:45

[mycroft]

I remember an auction that started 1♦-(1♠)-... that I eventually called the TD over and told him that I couldn't fairly bid on, because I know that partner has a strong NT. Why? Because the somewhat hard-of-hearing North at the other table had, in the last round, Announced 15-17 at the appropriate part of the last round.

Yep, if it would have gone 1NT-3NT, we'd have been good (even 1♦-1M; 1NT-3NT). But it didn't.

[campboy]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-November-01, 13:23, said:

What do you do when this occurs in a teams setting when the problem is caused by the team mates of one of the pairs at the table ?

I would apply 86D, treating the whole team responsible for the comment as offending. This is probably an oversight in the laws: "non-offending side" should ideally be "non-offending team". (A "side" is defined in the laws to be just the two players at the table.)

For EBU events the White Book endorses this approach.

Quote

If team A gets a good or lucky board against team B and, because of an infraction by team B, the board cannot be played at the second table, then the non-offenders are entitled to an assigned adjusted score under Law 86D.

[gnasher]

mycroft, on 2013-November-01, 14:45, said:

I remember an auction that started 1♦-(1♠)-... that I eventually called the TD over and told him that I couldn't fairly bid on, because I know that partner has a strong NT. Why? Because the somewhat hard-of-hearing North at the other table had, in the last round, Announced 15-17 at the appropriate part of the last round.

Although you broke the rules by not calling the director earlier, I understand why you did it. It's very annoying to have a board taken away unnecessarily because the director thinks the only option is give you Average+.