[bluejak]

In case anyone recognises this, I have deliberately changed some of the facts to make the problem interesting.

A player comes to speak to the TD away from the table. The auction has gone three passes to her. The problem is that the hand reached her sorted, and she feels confident that the previous table passed it out.

She does not want to play the hand with this information. What do you tell her?

[helene_t]

She can use the information that the hand reached her sorted if she wants to.

But even if it suggests that the hand was passed out at the other table (which is far from clear), it doesn't help her much, unless she knows that the three players who held the other three hands at the previous table were aggressive so that the fact (?) that they failed to open adds to the information she already has, namely that the three players before her failed to open, too,

[jeremy69]

When I was given this problem I didn't think it made the board unplayable. Assuming the player had made the "right" deduction it only means that one out of 84 people in that position had passed.

[jdonn]

Tell her she might be wrong about why the hand is sorted, and that the information wouldn't help her much anyway, and make her play the hand. Then discuss with the player who held the hand at the last table as a reminder to be careful in the future.

[nige1]

jdonn, on Jan 1 2010, 01:39 PM, said:

Tell her she might be wrong about why the hand is sorted, and that the information wouldn't help her much anyway, and make her play the hand. Then discuss with the player who held the hand at the last table as a reminder to be careful in the future.

Agree. At Reading Bridge Club, some players had difficulty sorting their hands, so others got into the habit of sorting them, after play. Arguably, sorting would always be better than shuffling.

[jonottawa]

Tell her if she doesn't want to play the board you will assign her opps an average plus regardless, and her side an average plus if the previous table passed out the board and a zero if the previous table did not.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on Jan 1 2010, 08:15 PM, said:

At Reading Bridge Club, some players had difficulty sorting their hands, so others got into the habit of sorting them, after play. Arguably, sorting would always be better than shuffling.

Except that it's no longer legal.

[jdonn]

jonottawa, on Jan 1 2010, 08:16 PM, said:

Tell her if she doesn't want to play the board you will assign her opps an average plus regardless, and her side an average plus if the previous table passed out the board and a zero if the previous table did not.

I know you are trying to get her to put her money where her mouth is, but I hate this solution. If she takes that bet, what did the opps do to deserve an average plus? And why should they be deprived of a bridge hand they have every right to play if it can be played?

If you think her claim is unreasonable, as we both seem to, then require her to play the hand and punish her if she won't. There is no need for such a creative solution that I believe has no basis in law anyway.

[FrancesHinden]

I agree with everyone else:
1. Tell her to play the hand
2. If required, tell her that her deduction may be incorrect; and even if it is correct it may not be that useful.
3. Separately, remind the players at the next table to shuffle their cards before putting them away.
4. Depending how good a player she is, tell her to call you back at the end of the hand if she thinks her opponents had been damaged and/or she felt she had too much information during the play.

By the way, the knowledge that a board was passed out at the previous table can be quite useful in the play particularly if you know that players at that table e.g. if you know one pair plays a mini NT then you know that that seat wasn't dealt a mini NT; or perhaps your opponents don't play weak twos but you know they do at the other table, so you know that no-one has a 'normal' weak two; etc

So it's not quite as simple as other people are making out.

My reason for making her play the hand is that a pass out may not be the reason the hand was sorted. I sometimes receive hands sorted, and it's usually because there's been a post mortem at the end of the hand at the previous table.

[bluejak]

I am surprised you know who is sitting in which seat at the next table. I would not!

As ever in this game, it is a matter of odds: when you have three passes to you and a doubtful opening yourself, the odds on the reason for the hand being unsorted shift dramatically from an interesting hand to a passout.

[bluejak]

As mentioned, the facts were not exactly as reported, but the interest lay in what I have given.

It was our view that the player be told to play on. There are one or two minor deductions one could make, but that is basically true of any extraneous information, and in practical terms we just let play continue unless there is a real danger of the hand being compromised by the extraneous information.

Note that legally the player's view as to whether she should play it is irrelevant: it is purely the TD's decision.

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on Jan 2 2010, 05:04 PM, said:

I am surprised you know who is sitting in which seat at the next table. I would not!

Really? This is a Swiss Pairs event, with 8 boards being played at the next table and the table passing you the boards. Certainly I would know who is sitting where in the case where it's relevant i.e. where I know the players and their systems.

[bluejak]

I cannot see how it would be relevant, and I have enough to worry me when playing without worrying about other tables. What is special about the next door table as against one eight tables away that I would find out who is playing?

[bluejak]

I have just played a Swiss Pairs. I remembered this - and at the end of it at no time had I known who both pairs were at any other table.