[Cyberyeti]

So you're playing in an 8 teams of 8 type final with several tables in the same room, and you overhear a comment that leads you to believe a side suit will break 5-0 against your slam and that somebody lightner'd it. You don't know what happened from there.

You call the director and explain that this might give you a problem playing the board, which you've realised at the point in question in the auction at which you have to choose whether to bid a slam and which one. The director removes the board and he and opps thank you for your honesty.

2 things come to light later, the comments that made your job awkward came from team mates, and the ruff only prevents the overtrick (although the person who made the lightner had every reason to believe he had another trick). At this point your opps are less impressed.

I said that without the comments, I'd have bid either 6N which is beaten by the textbook lead (that in my experience is very rarely found) of K from KJ10 to several trapping dummy's stiff Q, but makes on any other lead, or 6C and I'm not sure what I'd have done if 6C had been lightner'd.

Result from other table 6Cx= for 1090

How do you sort it out from here.

[gordontd]

It sounds like it might well be a case for L86D, as currently being discussed in this thread.

I'd need to ask some more questions, and in particular to find out how clear it would be to make a Lightner double of 6C.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on Jul 25 2010, 05:34 AM, said:

It sounds like it might well be a case for L86D, as currently being discussed in this thread.

I'd need to ask some more questions, and in particular to find out how clear it would be to make a Lightner double of 6C.

Reasonably obvious, you have void, trump and KJx over dummy's suit which declarer isn't short in, unfortunately dummy's suit is xxxxx.

This hand happened a long while ago, so my memory is slightly hazy as to the exact hands, which is why I'm not being more specific.

[bluejak]

It depends a little what you are asking. If you are asking how the TD goes about it, Laws 12C2, 86D and 90A seem to cover it. If you are asking about your actions, I think your opponents were a bit up and down in their opinions: too high, too low. You are required to do something by Law: you did it: they have no real reason to be impressed or unimpressed.

[aguahombre]

Anything worthy of mention about, with 8 teams playing, why your team mates are close enough that you can hear them?

Or anything about the fact that your own team mates caused the problem by talking about the board within earshot? Just asking. Of course what David said about your action is right on.

[Cyberyeti]

I was asking how you'd go about it as a director. This IIRC was long enough ago that it would have been covered by the previous set of rules, but I'd be interested in how it would be handled now.

I wasn't seeking any praise for my own actions, I view it as normal, but have been around when people have not done this sort of thing.

Originally the director ruled 3 IMPS each, but when he realised it was our team mates that had caused the problem, simply ruled 5 IMPS to our oppos (not sure if this was 920, or something else and a penalty).

The competition was the Garden Cities final (which will mean something to the UK players present), 8 teams of 8 (set up as 2 teams of 4) played in two rooms with 2 lines of 4 tables in each room and a NS and an EW from each team in each room. It so happened that we were playing the team whose home table was opposite and one across from us, but the room was small enough that overhearing was entirely possible from most places in it if talking was anything other than very quiet.

[bluejak]

Well, I have already given a general answer. More specifically, cancel the board, give Ave+/Ave-, consider an assigned score under Law 86D, a PP is probably not justified.

Quote

... the room was small enough that overhearing was entirely possible from most places in it if talking was anything other than very quiet.

Or very loud: if everyone is gabbling their heads off you cannot really hear anything. I reckon over-hearing stuff from other tables was made worse not better by the introduction of bidding boxes.

[cherdanno]

So just to satisfy the curiosity of someone who has never heard of law 86D: Assuming you use 86D, you could assign percentages to 6CX=, 6NT down, and games, with the percentages favoring defenders if in doubt, because
- we think that the opposing team achieved a very good score with 6CX=, and
- we deem them to be the offending side?

[bluejak]

Something like that. As can be seen from a couple of other threads we are feeling our way with no official advice.

[Cyberyeti]

It's probably going to come to something very similar, say:

40% 6Cx= for 0
40% 6N= for -3 imps
20% 6N-1 for -14 ish

[blackshoe]

Which law says we should be more harsh on the side who brought this to the TD's attention because it turned out to be their teammates with the big mouths?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on Jul 26 2010, 06:40 PM, said:

Which law says we should be more harsh on the side who brought this to the TD's attention because it turned out to be their teammates with the big mouths?

I don't know. Maybe the Law which requires a person who becomes aware of an irregularity to bring it to the attention of the TD, and whatever Law allows the offending side's result to be altered.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Jul 26 2010, 07:40 PM, said:

Which law says we should be more harsh on the side who brought this to the TD's attention because it turned out to be their teammates with the big mouths?

Think of it as being harsh on the teammates with the big mouths, not on the player who brought it to the director's attention.

[blackshoe]

Okay, Josh, that's a point.

[bluejak]

The ruling is the same whichever side brings it to the attention of the TD. A board is unplayable because of the fault of one contestant, thus that contestant gets Average Minus, and their opponents were not at fault, so they get Average Plus, everything subject to Law 86D.

[FrancesHinden]

Cyberyeti, on Jul 26 2010, 09:21 AM, said:

I wasn't seeking any praise for my own actions, I view it as normal, but have been around when people have not done this sort of thing.

There was a ruling/appeal I saw some time last year (I think) in which Player B successfully passed a take-out double on a slightly unusual hand that was lacking in trump tricks.

Player A accused player B of having a wire from the next table that this was the right thing to do. The TD asked Player A why he thought B had overheard something, and A explained that he had already heard the result from the next table before starting the board, so assumed that B had as well!

[blackshoe]

ROFL!

What, pray tell, did the TD do then?

[mrdct]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 6 2010, 08:02 AM, said:

The TD asked Player A why he thought B had overheard something, and A explained that he had already heard the result from the next table before starting the board, so assumed that B had as well!

Prepare the tar and feathers for Player A.

[RMB1]

I'm afraid this happens frequently.

A NS player hears that slam makes on the next board but does not call the TD, he presumes that EW have heard this too. EW bid to slam and now the NS player calls the TD, "we overheard that 6NT makes on this hand, and now East has jumped to 6NT". I ask why no one called the TD earlier.

If EW claim they did not overhear the remark about slam making then I believe them and rule that the result stands. If I can, I ask NS when they were going to call the TD if the making slam was their way.

[Cyberyeti]

I can also recall in a club, playing a mitchell movement a NS pair who were sure the next table's NS listened in on discussions. A cold and really obvious to bid slam was dealt their way and duly made, at which point N winked at me and said just loud enough "that's a really unfortunate slam, everybody's going to bid it and nobody's going to make it". Result 12x+980, 1x+480.