[Chris3875]

Here is a messy one that happened to me yesterday during a red point Teams
event.

Team 2 were playing Team 9 and North player Team 2 was the declarer in 3NT.
Part way through the hand West's mobile phone went off - with a particularly
loud and annoying ring tone. I jogged (not a pretty sight) across to the
table and told him to turn it off, which he did (or I thought he did). I had
only taken a few steps away from the table when it rang again. I turned back
and said "turn it off!!!" and he said "I don't know how". I told him to go
outside and lock it in his car which he did. However, by that stage, poor
North had totally lost the plot and ended up going 1-off. On the layout
of the cards I thought 3NT might be difficultto make so I told them to
score it up as 3NT going 1-off and that I would think about it and
reassess it later.

Meanwhile, at the other table, North player Team 9 was also in a 3NT
contract on the same board making!

This now gives Team 2 a very nasty score of -700 (12 imps which I think
equates to about 6 VPS on a 10 board match).

The situation did seem very unfair to me and I decided to restore equity by
giving Team 2 3NT making at their table - a "wash" on that board.

My decision meant that Team 2 was the eventual winner of the event by 2 VPS
(114) over Team 3 (112) and Team 1 (108), although I was unaware of that at
the time.

No-one is upset or worried about it - I just like to go through any
decisions I make during the day when I get home, and I am not too sure about
this one. On the one hand it FEELS right, but I don't actually have any LAW
to support the decision I made. What is the correct procedure and under which Law would you rule please.

[blackshoe]

Even without a regulation prohibiting cell phones, this West has violated Law 74A2. While that law uses the word "should", indicating that a PP should be rare, I think one is warranted in this case. Even more so if there is a regulation prohibiting cell phones. So, whatever the normal PP is in your area - it's 10% of a top at mps in England, or 25% in the US, I don't know about Oz. At IMPs, I'd say probably 2 IMPs.

As for score adjustment, we're in 12A1 territory, as the laws don't provide indemnity to the NOS for this kind of thing. 12A1 allows us to adjust the score. 12B tells the purpose of score adjustment is to restore equity. In a jurisdiction that allows weighted scores, if you believe the NOS might not have made 3NT without the opponent's infraction, then you might give some percentage of 3NT making, and some percentage of it failing by (it seems from your post) one trick. The precise adjustment depends on the four hands and the circumstances. From what you say, something like 80% of 3NT making, and 20% of 3NT down 1 might be appropriate. As always with such judgment rulings you should consult if at all possible.

I wouldn't argue with a ruling of 100% 3NT making, though, particularly in a case like this. The effect of the ruling on the eventual outcome of the event is irrelevant. You make the best ruling you can, the one you believe to be right, and let the chips fall where they may.

Seems to me you handled this one pretty well.

[aguahombre]

that is why I should never be a director....I would give the ruling Chris gave, plus a PP for annoying me about the cell phone.

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on Feb 4 2010, 12:43 AM, said:

Even without a regulation prohibiting cell phones, this West has violated Law 74A2. While that law uses the word "should", indicating that a PP should be rare, I think one is warranted in this case. Even more so if there is a regulation prohibiting cell phones. So, whatever the normal PP is in your area - it's 10% of a top at mps in England, or 25% in the US, I don't know about Oz. At IMPs, I'd say probably 2 IMPs.

The EBU white book says 3 IMPs for teams of four, but that's irrelevant, since PPs should be given in the final form of scoring, in this case VPs, so half a VP (which is the standard EBU rate).

[jeremy69]

And an additional PP for saying "I don't know how to turn it off?"

[pran]

I agree with the way Chris handled this case, but if he feels uncomfortable with the legal aspects here there is even another approach he could have used (particularly suitable in this case):

As the disruption has made it impossible for North to complete his play of that board in any sensible way (I accept this as a fact) he could simply have ruled Law 12C2A (When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained) and awarded the standard 3 IMP artificial score to NOS.

(In addition he could have awarded a PP to OS)

[Chris3875]

Christine

[karlson]

I'll admit that I'm not at all qualified to comment on the legal justification of the ruling, but as a player, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of changing the table result because of something external, and even more uncomfortable with the result being changed after the comparison.

In my view, give whatever penalty you want for the phone going off, and then give it again if they can't manage to turn it off before it goes off again, but don't take whatever blunder declarer made in 3n and annul it just because he/she may have been distracted by the interruption. It seems like it sets a precedent of giving people a license to claim that all sorts of external distractions forced them to make a bad bridge decision.

I think some flexibility because of the interruption is reasonable. If it's early in the hand, maybe it's appropriate to let declarer see the first few tricks again. If it's late in the hand, why not just let everyone finish it before taking the phone to the car?

[Elianna]

jeremy69, on Feb 4 2010, 12:41 AM, said:

And an additional PP for saying "I don't know how to turn it off?"

I actually would give the additional penalty for not saying it the first time it rings (and therefore letting it ring again).

There isn't an automatic cell phone penalty at the club I direct, but if one goes off, I go to the area of the ringing (and can usually find the exact person, or else everyone around is eager to point at the culprit), and ask if he/she needs help turning his/her cell phone off. Once in a while, I get an actual taker, but most of the time they do it on their own. I almost never have someone's cell go off more than once, because I give out PPs to those whose cell rings twice.

And if it'a reoccurring problem, I would include a reminder to turn cell phones off with either the pregame announcements (how many tables, etc) or else have a sign on the wall where the players can see it as they walk in.

[awm]

karlson, on Feb 4 2010, 04:55 AM, said:

It seems like it sets a precedent of giving people a license to claim that all sorts of external distractions forced them to make a bad bridge decision.

I think the key point is that this is not exactly an "external distraction." This is a distraction which is directly caused by the actions of their opponents. It's even arguably deliberate, in the sense that the person knew he was unable to comply with the director's request that he turn off the cell phone and didn't say anything to this effect.

A comparable situation might be an opponent who trash-talks during the play of the hand. The director is summoned and tells them to stop (perhaps even issuing a PP) but at this point declarer has totally lost his train of thought. Since the PP normally effects only the offending side, this means declarer now obtains a lousy result directly because of the opponent's illegal efforts to distract him (despite the fact that the PP could easily cancel his opponent's good result). That doesn't seem right to me either.

[jdonn]

Adjusting to 3NT making is wow. What if your opponent chats with a friend who walks by for 5 seconds and you say that distracts you? And didn't he actually play the hand after the opponent ran to the car anyway? If anything he had extra time to think.

I see giving a penalty to the player/team whose phone went off but that's it.

[Vampyr]

jeremy69, on Feb 4 2010, 09:41 AM, said:

And an additional PP for saying "I don't know how to turn it off?"

Yes, that seems a little absurd. If you can't turn it off, you can certainly open the back and take out the battery.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps an old experience of mine has influenced my opinion - I once blew a 3NT contract because one of our more obnoxious players (who was at another table) kept loudly and vociferously complaining about some problem at his table, involving a "substitute" director and his unhappiness with that person's ruling (it was teams, the actual director was on this player's opposing team, at the other table). I didn't bother calling the TD (he's incompetent anyway), but it's never sat well with me that it happened. IAC, as I said, the player whose phone went off violated law 74A2, and that leads, imo, to a score adjustment under 12A2. Granted that law doesn't require the TD to adjust the score, but I don't think telling a player "okay, so you were distracted by so-and-so. Too bad. You should be so focused that nothing distracts you" is either legal or appropriate.

[pran]

Chris3875, on Feb 4 2010, 10:42 AM, said:

Christine

My apologies.

[karlson]

awm, on Feb 4 2010, 09:20 AM, said:

karlson, on Feb 4 2010, 04:55 AM, said:

It seems like it sets a precedent of giving people a license to claim that all sorts of external distractions forced them to make a bad bridge decision.

I think the key point is that this is not exactly an "external distraction." This is a distraction which is directly caused by the actions of their opponents. It's even arguably deliberate, in the sense that the person knew he was unable to comply with the director's request that he turn off the cell phone and didn't say anything to this effect.

A comparable situation might be an opponent who trash-talks during the play of the hand. The director is summoned and tells them to stop (perhaps even issuing a PP) but at this point declarer has totally lost his train of thought. Since the PP normally effects only the offending side, this means declarer now obtains a lousy result directly because of the opponent's illegal efforts to distract him (despite the fact that the PP could easily cancel his opponent's good result). That doesn't seem right to me either.

I would not like an adjustment in that case either. Strict penalties seem fine to me (I dunno, first pp=3 imps, second=10 imps, third=match or something), but I'm still uncomfortable with adjusting the result. By "external" I just meant not related to the cardplay (i.e. this is very different from an adjustment based on UI, MI, etc).

[Chris3875]

I have never owned and rarely used a mobile phone. I remember last year taking my three grandchildren to Melbourne for a few days and my daughter armed me with her mobile phone -I wrote the number on the back of some tags the children wore around their necks so if they got lost the finder could contact me quickly. We went into the Planetarium where there were signs - TURN OFF MOBILE PHONES!! I had not a clue how to do that (and spent the entire visit feeling sick - quite sure the damn thing was going to ring), so I did have SOME sympathy for the player.

[jdonn]

Here comes my soapbox I suppose, but to me this comes down to personal responsibility. It seems to be a largely American trait to blame anyone but oneself for anything that goes wrong in life. Sorry if there was a distraction, but there are tons of distractions during every hand coming from every direction. And sorry if the director once blew a contract because he was distracted, but that doesn't mean every 3NT contract that anyone ever blows during a hand where they got distracted from then on is not their fault.

If someone goes down in a hand he could have made it's his fault. He shouldn't get a free pass for his mistakes just because there is a convenient excuse. Where do we draw the line? Volume meters to measure the noise coming from nearby tables? Penalties for taking up 2 parking spots since you make everyone who arrives after you a bit later and more rushed? Adjust my result because I was distract by RHO's colorful sweater?

[bluejak]

I am not worried about the adjustment which sees fine to me. But this talk of PPs makes me uncomfortable. What sort of person cannot turn their mobile phone off? If you think about it, very definitely not the sort of person that you should give a PP to freely. And as for suggesting such a person takes the battery out: if they cannot turn it off, they probably do not realise it has a battery. A little more consideration, please.

[Pict]

I agree with Karlson and would be embarassed to be given a contract in these circumstances.

I think I'd also be surprised to see PPs given. Everyone seems amazingly overwrought in this scenario.

[jdonn]

I thought (perhaps depending on jurisdiction/event) there was an automatic penalty for the phone ringing. I do agree that it's overkill to give an extra penalty simply because he doesn't know how to turn the phone off. But if the phone isn't allowed to ring in the game then don't come in with the phone. That's what the penalty is for.