[lamford]

---

Table result 7♣=; Lead J♠; NS+2140.

This was an interesting hand from a North London club last night. It was a multiple teams, and this board in the second half decided the event. North messed up the auction forgetting briefly that 4C was RKCB, and the poor grand was reached. South, our friend who looks like a Secretary Bird, won the opening lead, and led the jack of clubs and then dropped the king of clubs offside to land his grand slam. "Why did you do that?", asked West suspiciously, and SB replied, "Because your partner did not cover the jack of clubs. He is an extremely weak player, and, as Zia says, if they don't cover, they've not got it". West was unhappy, particularly with the denigration of his partner's ability (although SB stated he was obliged to answer a question truthfully) and thought back to the tea-interval earlier where he remembered Bumptious Bill saying loudly, "The king of clubs is ALWAYS singleton offside". The TD was called and established that BB was discussing with his partner "old spouses' tales" in bridge, and BB would not play this board in the particular movement where only 24 of the 26 boards in play were played by each team.

How do you rule? And, on a linguistic issue, is it the spouses that are old or the tales, and is old wives' tales no longer PC? And does SB get a PP again?

[billw55]

IMO there is not enough evidence of an infraction to make a ruling on this board.

Perhaps you ask about a PP for his insult to east? I suppose that would depend on context and history, but still probably not.

[Zelandakh]

Ignoring the bridge for a moment, wives' in OWT refers to women rather than spouses and the old is attached to the wives'. So they are the stories of old women. Oh yes, and no PP from me but Ed will probably throw one.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-10, 06:08, said:

Oh yes, and no PP from me but Ed will probably throw one.

Not this time.

[nige1]

If the director knows that BB declaimed "The king of clubs is ALWAYS singleton offside" during the tea-interval and strongly suspects that SB overheard, then, IMO, the director should investigate further, with a view to imposing a PP on SB for failing to call the director about possibly relevant potential UI. I don't think it matters whether, in fact, BB hadn't played the board, unless, somehow, SB knew that.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2014-September-10, 17:08, said:

If the director knows that BB declaimed "The king of clubs is ALWAYS singleton offside" during the tea-interval and strongly suspects that SB overheard, then, IMO, the director should investigate further, with a view to imposing a PP on SB for failing to call the director about possibly relevant potential UI. I don't think it matters whether, in fact, BB hadn't played the board, unless, somehow, SB knew that.

I think the Law is specific. The information has to be "about a board he is playing or is due to play". Even if someone (and SB would never do this) deliberately looks at a hand record on the TD table, thinking it is the event he is playing in, then I cannot think of any Law he is breaking if he looks at the wrong hand record and uses that information. I am sure someone will think of a Law with which to punish him.

[blackshoe]

So there's nothing wrong with somebody deliberately trying to cheat, as long as he screws up and gathers "information" that has nothing to do with the hand(s) on which he's trying to cheat?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-10, 21:40, said:

So there's nothing wrong with somebody deliberately trying to cheat, as long as he screws up and gathers "information" that has nothing to do with the hand(s) on which he's trying to cheat?

There certainly should be. But I cannot find a blanket rule to punish him under.

[campboy]

I don't see a law which covers the "information" issue. But if SB did do something wrong by failing to inform the TD when he overheard Bumptious Bill's remark, shouldn't the same apply to West?

[nige1]

campboy, on 2014-September-11, 11:08, said:

I don't see a law which covers the "information" issue. But if SB did do something wrong by failing to inform the TD when he overheard Bumptious Bill's remark, shouldn't the same apply to West?

BB & SB may be among a select few tea-drinkers, most players preferring the bar

[campboy]

nige1, on 2014-September-11, 14:05, said:

BB & SB may be among a select few tea-drinkers, most players preferring the bar

But we were told in the OP that West did overhear BB's remark; in fact the possibility of SB having heard it appears to be conjecture based on the fact that West heard it.

[nige1]

campboy, on 2014-September-11, 15:59, said:

But we were told in the OP that West did overhear BB's remark; in fact the possibility of SB having heard it appears to be conjecture based on the fact that West heard it.

Sorry, campboy is right.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-September-11, 11:08, said:

I don't see a law which covers the "information" issue. But if SB did do something wrong by failing to inform the TD when he overheard Bumptious Bill's remark, shouldn't the same apply to West?

No, it was not "information" about a board he was playing or was still to play. He did not know that, but the Law does not require that he does.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-September-11, 19:31, said:

No, it was not "information" about a board he was playing or was still to play. He did not know that, but the Law does not require that he does.

Yes, I agree; neither player has done anything illegal (apart from SB's comment about East). I just meant that anyone who disapproves of SB's failure to tell the TD what he overheard should also disapprove of West's.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2014-September-11, 06:15, said:

There certainly should be. But I cannot find a blanket rule to punish him under.

The Laws in general are not geared towards intentional cheating, they're mostly about resolving the issues arising from errors. Some of them are unintentional (dropping a card accidentally, being confused about whose turn it is to bid or play, etc.), some are avoidable (transmitting or making use of UI). There are a small number of general rules about intentional infractions, but not specifics like this.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-September-12, 03:35, said:

Yes, I agree; neither player has done anything illegal (apart from SB's comment about East).

I don't think it was a comment, or remark. I think it was a reply to a question which is not permitted in the first place, Law 20 only permits explanations of calls not plays, and nowhere can I find any right to ask why a line was chosen, so it seems unduly harsh to penalise SB for answering truthfully (if he was indeed doing so).

[ahydra]

lamford, on 2014-September-12, 09:51, said:

I don't think it was a comment, or remark. I think it was a reply to a question which is not permitted in the first place, Law 20 only permits explanations of calls not plays, and nowhere can I find any right to ask why a line was chosen, so it seems unduly harsh to penalise SB for answering truthfully (if he was indeed doing so).

Do the (non-"Proprietries") Laws even apply to the period between boards?

ahydra

[RMB1]

ahydra, on 2014-September-12, 11:33, said:

Do the (non-"Proprietries") Laws even apply to the period between boards?

I think they apply to a session - so they apply to a mid-session break if the boards are still live.

Even if a session has finished at one table (and a team is scoring up), a remark from that table is dealt with under Law 16C if overheard at a table still playing the session.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-September-12, 09:51, said:

I don't think it was a comment, or remark. I think it was a reply to a question which is not permitted in the first place, Law 20 only permits explanations of calls not plays, and nowhere can I find any right to ask why a line was chosen, so it seems unduly harsh to penalise SB for answering truthfully (if he was indeed doing so).

Law 20 permits explanation of plays, and questions about partnership understandings regarding plays.

Quote

Law 20F2, second sentence: At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card-play understandings. [Emphasis mine.]

Also

Quote

Law 40B6{a}: When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

I don't suppose "why did you choose that line?" is a legitimate question to ask an opponent — although I certainly think it's a legitimate question to ask oneself about an opponent's (including CHO's) line.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-12, 14:37, said:

Quote

Law 20F2, second sentence: At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card-play understandings. [Emphasis mine.]

The defender asked about the declarer's play after the play was over. SB could have answered "no declarer understanding", but he preferred to take a swipe at RHO.