[Chris3875]

Yesterday, at the lunch break, one of the NS players asked an EW friend, "did you bid the 7NT?"

Later, during the afternoon session, the EW player realised he was now holding the 7NT hand. He is a very experienced player and when he says the 7NT was cold, I believe him. However, in an effort to be "ethical" he instead chose to bid 6D, which made 13 tricks and was 3rd best score on the day on that hand.

I don't know what the hand was as he had not kept a hand record and I wasn't playing yesterday.

Do you believe that this player should have called the Director immediately he realised that he had been given information about the hand he was holding?

If you were called to the table and given the above facts, how would you rule?

I was in a similar situation about 18 months ago myself and I recall that I called the Director and was given an Average+. I had to ask myself would I have bid the hand to it's full potential and had to be honest and say, probably not (I am a bit of a wimpy bidder) whereas the EW player yesterday would certainly have bid the 7NT I am sure.

I think as the Director I would have been tempted to give him the 7NT making and give the NS player some sort of PP but do not know if there is any law covering that.

[jeremy69]

If the player realised he knew something about the board then, yes, he should have summoned the director immediately and explained, away from the table, what the problem was. The director can then decide
a. what he has heard does not matter so play the board
b. what he has heard will stop the board being played
c. what he has heard MIGHT affect the board and to continue but rhe director reserves the right to stop the board

In the case you describe I think b applies and would give both sides 60% (or their session average, if higher) and I would definitely give the player who blabbed about the hand both a PP and a finger wagging. This type of thing happens too often so a bit of hanging, drawing and quartering would not come amiss.

[aguahombre]

PP for the organizers of the event.

[blackshoe]

Law 16C said:

Extraneous Information From Other Sources
1. When a player accidentally receives unauthorized 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, the director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information.
2. If the director considers that the information could 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; or
  {b} if the form of competition allows of it, order the board redealt for those contestants; or
  {c} allow completion of the play of the board, standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result; or
  {d} award an artificial adjusted score.

Law 90A said:

The director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offense that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table.

It occurs to me that it is (barely) possible that the player concerned made an incorrect assumption, and that in fact the 7NT hand he saw in the afternoon was not the one he heard about during the break. If that was the case, then the player shot himself in the foot. It seems more likely that it was not the case, and if so I agree with Aqua - the TO messed up. But that doesn't matter to the table ruling, on which I agree with Jeremy with the exception that if the TD allows play to continue, he cannot "stop the board", but he may adjust the score after it's played, the quoted laws above being applicable.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on Jan 9 2010, 01:08 PM, said:

PP for the organizers of the event.

I second that. It's just silly if you can't talk about boards during a lunch break.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on Jan 9 2010, 06:17 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Jan 9 2010, 01:08 PM, said:

PP for the organizers of the event.

I second that. It's just silly if you can't talk about boards during a lunch break.

Rik

I understand that Mitchell is still quite frequently played in many countries.

Do you never have breaks in the middle of a complete Mitchell schedule?

[Chris3875]

This "event" is just a normal, weekly, regular Mitchell movement where the session happens to start at 10.30 am and finish about 4.00 pm with a half hour lunch break.

If it were a special red point Pairs or Teams event, then sure, players would finish a complete set of boards before the lunch break - I don't think you can shoot the organisers for running a routine Mitchell event in the way they do - there are probably 11 tables playing 4 boards each during the course of the session.

Players understand that they have played boards that other people have not yet come across and should surely have enough ethics and self control to keep quiet until the session is totally over.

Apparently there was no doubt that the board in question was, in fact, the 7NT board. I thought the player shot himself in both feet - firstly by not calling the Director straight away and secondly by trying to be "holier than thou" and deciding to bid 6D. To add insult to injury the particular player and his partner missed out on first place by some miniscule point something of a percentage.

[duschek]

Part of the problem is that ethical players with no firm understanding of the Laws do not realise that when the UI was not transmitted by partner, they are not required to avoid taking advantage of it (but should immediately call the TD).

It is interesting whether the player can still get his 60% after the hand when he explains to the TD why he did not bid 7NT.

[aguahombre]

Interesting. I thought "normal" Mitchell for 11 tables was 9 3-board rounds, lasting a little more than 3 hours. Easy to eat before or after. I have never encountered a single session event with anything more than an extra 6 or 7 minutes in the middle.

[blackshoe]

duschek, on Jan 9 2010, 05:49 PM, said:

Part of the problem is that ethical players with no firm understanding of the Laws do not realise that when the UI was not transmitted by partner, they are not required to avoid taking advantage of it (but should immediately call the TD).

It is interesting whether the player can still get his 60% after the hand when he explains to the TD why he did not bid 7NT.

It is true that law 73C "...player... must carefully avoid..." refers only to UI from partner. It is true that Law 16C requires a player in receipt of UI from other sources to call the TD "forthwith". It is not true that such player can use the UI with impunity. See Law 16C2{c}.

I don't think you can still award an artificial adjusted score after a result has been obtained.

[Chris3875]

If you only played 9 rounds in an 11 table Mitchell, surely you would miss playing 2 pairs ?

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on Jan 9 2010, 05:50 PM, said:

Interesting.  I thought "normal" Mitchell for 11 tables was 9 3-board rounds, lasting a little more than 3 hours.  Easy to eat before or after.  I have never encountered a single session event with anything more than an extra 6 or 7 minutes in the middle.

There are several possible single session Mitchell movements with 11 tables.

There's nothing wrong with having a lunch break in the middle of a day of bridge, but it would be better, imo, to set up a two stanza movement. You might, for example, divide the 22 pairs into 2 groups, call them A and B. In the first stanza, groups A and B play amongst themselves in an Interwoven Howell. In the second, group A sits one way (NS, say) and group B the other in a Scrambled Mitchell. This might result in a slightly longer day — 7.5 minutes per board x 22 boards is 2 3/4 hours, so 5 1/2 hours for the bridge and a half hour for lunch is 10:30 to 4:30, instead of 4 o'clock, but if that's acceptable to the players, it would eliminate the problem of people discussing boards that others haven't played during lunch. You need two sets of 22 boards, if they're pre-duplicated, of course. In the Howell, the lowest numbered pair from group A will meet the lowest number pair from group B. These pairs will meet again in the Mitchell. You can avoid this "revenge round" if you wish by simply cancelled the first round of the Mitchell, having the EW pairs move up a table, and starting with round 2. But then you'll have to factor the boards (most scoring software should do this automagically).

If all that's too complicated, and you just want to run a single Mitchell with a long break in the middle, you can certainly do that, but you should make it clear to players (I would announce it at the start of the day and again at the start of the lunch break) that they are not to discuss the boards they've played during the lunch break. I think though that they'd get more enjoyment from the opportunity to discuss the hands.

When I lived in England, the local club ran a single session movement with a fifteen minute break in the middle. I don't remember how long the sessions were, about four hours probably. Here in Rochester, many players (and quite a few directors ) think four hours is too long, three is about right. So we don't get breaks in the middle. Heck, we're lucky if we actually get moved in between "move for the next round" and next round start. OTOH, we do have a semi-annual "bridge day" run by the local association. That's always been a two session event, afaik.

[Chris3875]

Blackshoe - reading back through your original reply to this thread - I am of the opinion that if the player in question had called the Director immediately and explained the situation, been allowed to continue bidding and playing the hand normally, bid and made 7NT, I would have been inclined to allow him to keep that score knowing the class of player that he is.

I am reading c} allow completion of the play of the board, standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result

I am suggesting that the UI did not affect the result - what say you ?

[blackshoe]

Hard to say without seeing the hands, but if it was clear from AI to bid 7NT, there being no LA, then yes, that result should stand.

[Chris3875]

Blackshoe - I hear what you are saying about 2 sections, etc. etc. and while we do that for red point events, club championships, etc. this is just a normal Friday semi-social day of bridge for 80% of the players. They don't want to be messing around playing Howell movements (which they HATE anyway).

We usually have "hospitality" after the day's play - some wine, beer, cheese and dip, etc. The hand records are distributed and people can dissect, discuss and rehash to their heart's content.

I don't think it's expecting too much to ask people to not discuss the hands - the particular player who made the comment, deserves a harsh smack IMO because it would not have taken him much effort to work out that the person he spoke to had not played that board.

This is one instance where I believe that a PP would be appropriate - if you decided to give one how does it actually work? Do you take a certain percentage off their final score ?

[bluejak]

A "standard" PP in England is 10% of a top. While for a serious problem we might give twice standard or more, normal is to give a standard PP.

[Chris3875]

Thanks David - can you give me a simple example please, because I don't really understand what you mean.

[bluejak]

Assume you are scoring a Mitchell, where each board is played nine times. That means a top is 16 MPs [8 MPs using North American scoring]. 10% of this is 1.6 MPs [0.8 MPs in North America] so you deduct that from the pair at the end.

[Chris3875]

Gotcha !!!! thanks very much

[axman]

Chris3875, on Jan 9 2010, 05:30 AM, said:

Yesterday, at the lunch break, one of the NS players asked an EW friend, "did you bid the 7NT?"

Later, during the afternoon session, the EW player realised he was now holding the 7NT hand. He is a very experienced player and when he says the 7NT was cold, I believe him. However, in an effort to be "ethical" he instead chose to bid 6D, which made 13 tricks and was 3rd best score on the day on that hand.

I don't know what the hand was as he had not kept a hand record and I wasn't playing yesterday.

Do you believe that this player should have called the Director immediately he realised that he had been given information about the hand he was holding?

If you were called to the table and given the above facts, how would you rule?

I was in a similar situation about 18 months ago myself and I recall that I called the Director and was given an Average+. I had to ask myself would I have bid the hand to it's full potential and had to be honest and say, probably not (I am a bit of a wimpy bidder) whereas the EW player yesterday would certainly have bid the 7NT I am sure.

I think as the Director I would have been tempted to give him the 7NT making and give the NS player some sort of PP but do not know if there is any law covering that.

Just because the boards will produce the contract does not warrant the conclusion that the hands were the same. Without a record of the hands from yesterday and today there is no basis for a finding that those boards were the same.

The hand record from a Houston game yesterday had 3 boards where grands were cold- and two of them included 7N- in different directions. And the hands were not the same.