[RMB1]

This is a follow up to two threads: Overheard at the next table and 12 black cards!

Scoring: IMP

W . N . E . S
. . 1♦ 1♠ 2♥
4♠ 5♥ 5♠ 6♥
6♠ P . P . X
P . P . P

---

After the first bid, West says that he heard something from the other table as they finished the boards and passed it to this table. The TD is not called and West does not say what he heard.

1. If the TD is called and finds that West heard "We should have bid six hearts", how do you rule?

When the auction reaches 6♠ P P, the TD is called. South wants to know whether what West heard has affected his 6♠ bid.

2. What should the TD rule now?

As the TD, I decided that the damage had been done and instructed play to continue. I did not find out what West had heard and I did not answer South's question. I checked the other table in the match and they had already played the board.

South doubled and East took the club finesse for 6♠X=. I now asked West what he had heard. The result at the other table was 6♥-1 by South.

3. Do you adjust the score at this table/match?

I decided that had I been called at 1♦ I would have found that West hearing "We should have bid six hearts" could interfere with normal play and awarded an artificial adjusted score +3IMP to both sides.

I know some contributors to this forum would have ruled differently, because they told me so at the event.

[gordontd]

I imagine the long silence in response to your original post must be because no-one can find anything to fault in it.

Had the players called you when they were meant to, you might have had the option of getting them to play a substitute board instead, but now that they've played it and the unauthorized information may have affected the result, the only option seems to be to award an adjusted score.

[Rossoneri]

No warning for West?

Artificial score seems just about right.

[JoAnneM]

Maybe west didn't realize which board it was that he heard something about until the bidding started. People hear things all the time but they don't know which board it is. I think it was honorable that he said anything at all, most wouldn't, and who would know the difference.

And if it was a team match why were the tables so close to begin with? I would give a warning to the other table about talking too loudly.

[blackshoe]

The board was played, so artificial adjusted score is out. Assigned is the way to go. The relevant Law is 16C2c, via 16C3. The fact that had the TD been called before the board was played he would have awarded an artificial adjusted score via 16C2d is irrelevant.

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on Apr 10 2010, 07:15 PM, said:

The board was played, so artificial adjusted score is out. Assigned is the way to go. The relevant Law is 16C2c, via 16C3. The fact that had the TD been called before the board was played he would have awarded an artificial adjusted score via 16C2d is irrelevant.

I disagree. As Robin says, a result was not obtained through "normal play".

Law 16C3 is not relevant because that applies "when the UI is received after the first call in the auction has been made", whereas in the actual case:

Quote

West says that he heard something from the other table as they finished the boards and passed it to this table.

West breached Law 16C1; that is the breach for which we are adjusting. If West had called the TD at the proper time then the TD may have been able to arrange for a substitute board. When the TD was eventually called, it was too late to do so.
Thus North/South should get average plus (Law 16C2(d) and Law 12C2(a)), but I think Robin may have been a little too generous to East/West: West is at least partially at fault and/or a PP is appropriate for the failure to call the TD earlier.

[jallerton]

JoAnneM, on Apr 10 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

And if it was a team match why were the tables so close to begin with? I would give a warning to the other table about talking too loudly.

A few years ago, the EBU changed to using pre-duplicated boards in Swiss Teams events. Whilst this has the advantage that players from different matches can discuss the hands at the end of the set, it has the more fundametal disadvantage that players from different matches can discuss the hands about to be played by other tables during the set.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on Apr 10 2010, 07:37 PM, said:

I disagree.  As Robin says, a result was not obtained through "normal play".

Maybe not, but so what?

Okay, 16C1 was breached. But 16C1 does not provide indemnity to the NOS for a breach of this law. So where does the TD get authority to award an adjusted score?

Law 12A1 said:

The director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

Now, Law 12C tells the TD how to adjust, and

Law 12C1a said:

When after an irregularity the director is empowered by these Laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play.

Note that this law says nothing about "normal" play. Law 12C2a starts

Quote

When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained…

In this case a result, however "abnormal", was obtained, so I don't see how one can apply this law. As far as I can see the only way to get to 12C2 is via

12A2 said:

The director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board.

IHowever, the board has been played, so no such rectification would be possible in any case. I think 12C1 takes precedence unless the director cannot assign a score (12C1d, for example). But I think that should be rare.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on Apr 11 2010, 12:43 AM, said:

A few years ago, the EBU changed to using pre-duplicated boards in Swiss Teams events. Whilst this has the advantage that players from different matches can discuss the hands at the end of the set, it has the more fundametal disadvantage that players from different matches can discuss the hands about to be played by other tables during the set.

It has several other advantages: the boards are properly shuffled; there's no need for the players to waste time on dealing; the boards can be passed from table to table instead of each match having to swap at the the half-way point.

[gordontd]

...and it allows you to play Boards 1-49 instead of several sets of 8-14 and none of 22-28.

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on Apr 11 2010, 01:17 AM, said:

As far as I can see the only way to get to 12C2 is via

12A2 said:

The director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board.

IHowever, the board has been played, so no such rectification would be possible in any case. I think 12C1 takes precedence unless the director cannot assign a score (12C1d, for example). But I think that should be rare.

I think Law 12A2 could be in point as "no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board" , i.e. they cannot bid and play the hand again once the players have already had an auction and play period under the "abnormal" conditions.

I'm not sure why you think 12C1 should take precedence, but if you read it carefully and apply it to this situation:

Law12C1a said:

When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play.

you may come to the conculsion that the TD is not "able to award an assigned adjusted score".

If you consider the parts of Law 12 which you didn't quote, you may see that there are other ways to arrive at Robin's conclusion:

Law12A3 said:

The Director may award an adjusted score if there has been an incorrect rectification of an irregularity.

There has been an incorrect rectification of an irregularity because the TD was not called. 12A3 does not specify whether the adjusted score has to be artificial or assigned.

Law12B said:

. Objectives of Score Adjustment

1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1[b].

If West had called the TD at the proper time, N/S would either have had the opportunity to play a substitute board or would have received average plus.

[blackshoe]

There has not been an incorrect rectification of an irregularity, there has been no rectification of an irregularity.

Quote

you may come to the conculsion that the TD is not "able to award an assigned adjusted score".

Nope. Thought about that, don't buy it.

12C1 takes precedence because a result was obtained. That law doesn't say it has to be a "normal" result.

[jallerton]

The term "incorrect rectification" is a little strange, but if nothing has been done to rectify something which ought to have been rectified, I'd consider the doing nothing to be "incorrect"!

[mich-b]

jallerton, on Apr 10 2010, 06:43 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on Apr 10 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

And if it was a team match why were the tables so close to begin with?  I would give a warning to the other table about talking too loudly.

A few years ago, the EBU changed to using pre-duplicated boards in Swiss Teams events. Whilst this has the advantage that players from different matches can discuss the hands at the end of the set, it has the more fundametal disadvantage that players from different matches can discuss the hands about to be played by other tables during the set.

Does this problem exists everywhere?
Is there any country where the problem of people discussing hands immediately after playing them , and being heard by other players , has been eliminated by harsh penalties ? or by education ? or by any other means?

[pran]

mich-b, on Apr 12 2010, 07:41 AM, said:

jallerton, on Apr 10 2010, 06:43 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on Apr 10 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

And if it was a team match why were the tables so close to begin with?   I would give a warning to the other table about talking too loudly.

A few years ago, the EBU changed to using pre-duplicated boards in Swiss Teams events. Whilst this has the advantage that players from different matches can discuss the hands at the end of the set, it has the more fundametal disadvantage that players from different matches can discuss the hands about to be played by other tables during the set.

Does this problem exists everywhere?
Is there any country where the problem of people discussing hands immediately after playing them , and being heard by other players , has been eliminated by harsh penalties ? or by education ? or by any other means?

This is definitely no problem in Norway; we duplicate the sufficient copies of identical boards so that all tables play the same boards during the same round.

Last weekend I ran a swiss for 16 teams of four. With 8 boards to be played in each round 4 copies were sufficient for a smooth event.

[jvage]

Saying it is no problem in Norway is IMO an exaggeration. I don't think we have more problems than most other countries, but both as a director and player I know several cases where information that may affect play have been overheard. This goes for both pairs and teams.

As a sidenote, I remember an incident during the final round of this years Premier League. A player from a neighbouring table said to my screenmate (for courtesy reasons I mention no names...): "Could you please keep quiet, we would like to be able to analyze at least one board ourselves..."

John

[pran]

jvage, on Apr 12 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

Saying it is no problem in Norway is IMO an exaggeration. I don't think we have more problems than most other countries, but both as a director and player I know several cases where information that may affect play have been overheard. This goes for both pairs and teams.

As a sidenote, I remember an incident during the final round of this years Premier League. A player from a neighbouring table said to my screenmate (for courtesy reasons I mention no names...): "Could you please keep quiet, we would like to be able to analyze at least one board ourselves..."

John

I was commenting on the same boards being played in different rounds at different tables in for instance Swiss Teams events. My assertion was, and still is that we do not run such events this way in Norway and thus that this problem does not exist here.

But of course we have problems with remarks at one table being overheard at another during a round.

I still remember the national championship for clubs final in 1984 (my debut as a federation director) where the remark "fine, they make six in Diamonds" was made by a pair that had sacrified against this contract, the remark being overheard by Breck/Lien at a neighbouring table.

Breck (or was it Lien?) exclaimed: "When you speak about a board you had better speak correct!", provided the closing pass over opponents' 6D bid and set this contract!

[gordontd]

pran, on Apr 12 2010, 11:46 AM, said:

I was commenting on the same boards being played in different rounds at different tables in for instance Swiss Teams events. My assertion was, and still is that we do not run such events this way in Norway and thus that this problem does not exist here.

Does anywhere do that?

Quote

But of course we have problems with remarks at one table being overheard at another during a round.

That's what was being discussed.

[pran]

gordontd, on Apr 12 2010, 12:01 PM, said:

pran, on Apr 12 2010, 11:46 AM, said:

I was commenting on the same boards being played in different rounds at different tables in for instance Swiss Teams events. My assertion was, and still is that we do not run such events this way in Norway and thus that this problem does not exist here.

Does anywhere do that?

Quote

But of course we have problems with remarks at one table being overheard at another during a round.

That's what was being discussed.

Maybe I misunderstood the part quoted below of the actual post which I commented? (But if I did then I don't understand the relevance of the references to Swiss Teams event and pre-duplicated boards. Before we used pre-duplicated boards in Norway the usual method was for each table to deal one board (or more if necessary), maybe make an exact copy of it and then share this board with every other table in the session/round)

A few years ago, the EBU changed to using pre-duplicated boards in Swiss Teams events. Whilst this has the advantage that players from different matches can discuss the hands at the end of the set, it has the more fundametal disadvantage that players from different matches can discuss the hands about to be played by other tables during the set.

[gordontd]

pran, on Apr 12 2010, 02:54 PM, said:

Before we used pre-duplicated boards in Norway the usual method was for each table to deal one board (or more if necessary), maybe make an exact copy of it and then share this board with every other table in the session/round

In England before we used pre-duplicated boards the usual method in Swiss Teams was for each match to deal its own boards and play them. Different matches played different boards, and it didn't matter if you overheard something from the table next to you.