[WellSpyder]

Towards the end of a recent teams of 8 match, a player opened 1♠ and then found himself wondering whether to make a slam try after partner responded 4♠ (no opposition bidding). While he was thinking about this, at least 3 players at the table, including the player who was thinking, heard a comment from a player at another table who had already finished playing who said something to his partner along the lines of "I expect they will bid the 6♠...." What should happen now?

My reading of Law 16 suggests that this is clearly UI. And since the auction has already started it does not appear that the TD has any option other than to allow the hand to continue (though my original thought at the time was that the board might well be cancelled). But this seems to put the opening bidder in an impossible situation if he judges that pass is a LA but that slam is probably odds on. That may be reasonable if the comment was made by a teammate. But should this still apply if the comment was made by a member of the opposing team? Is there something in the laws that I haven't spotted that distinguishes these situations? Or perhaps something in the way that TDs operate in practice? (The incident happened in England, so would the EBU White Book help me?)

[RMB1]

WellSpyder, on 2016-January-25, 11:20, said:

(The incident happened in England, so would the EBU White Book help me?)

I don't think the White Book text re Law 16C has changed since the 2007 laws, which added C2(c), previously the TD had to decide before allowing play to continue that the information would not affect the result. The current EBU position is to have board played wherever possible, encouraging the use of C2(c).

In the OP, we have to apply Law 16C3, which takes us to C2(c) without the option. This putd the player is an awkward position: without their side having created a problem, they must play on but the cannot use the information (Law 16A3). The TD can award an assigned adjusted score (some weighting of 4S and 6S) but can rule that normal play of the board was not possible and award an artificial adjusted score (e.g. AVE+/AVE+ if the overheard remark was from some third party, not the teams at the table).

When the overheard remark was made by team mates of one of the pairs at the table, then that team (see definition of contestant) is responsible for the board being unplayable and the artificial adjusted score for that pair is AVE-. It is also possible to fine the team that made the overheard remark.