[blackshoe]

This hand was posted on another forum:

---

Vul is actually unknown, scoring is IMPs. The kicker is that when South (the OP) took his hand out of the board, it was completely sorted, as shown in the diagram. He inferred several things from this: that the board was passed out at the other table, that all four hands have roughly 9-11 HCP, that all four hands are relatively balanced. All this suggested to him that he should double 4♥. His question was whether he has UI, and whether he is constrained to pass. That's an interesting question, but this other one occurred to me: suppose the TD decides he has UI, and so is constrained to pass. Thus, if he might have doubled, his side might have attained a better score. That's the very definition of "damage" which should be redressed if it was due to an opponent's infraction. Here, ultimately, it seems to me that his opponent's failure to shuffle his cards is an infraction of Law 7, and so indeed he has been damaged by an opponent's infraction, and is entitled to an adjustment. What say you all?

Bonus question: Suppose we decide he's entitled to an adjustment in the case above. Now suppose that he did in fact double. Aren't the opponents entitled to an adjustment on the basis of use of UI? If so, has this South shot himself in the foot, are the laws flawed, or is there some other reason he doesn't get the benefit of defeating the doubled contract?

Yes, I know. If he doesn't have UI, we don't have an interesting problem to discuss. But I think he does (see Law 16C).

[aguahombre]

Anyone think he has EI that the opponent at the other table committed an infraction and that the board might have been passed out, rather than UI that this actually occurred?

And, if so, isn't he using the information at his own risk?

There are other reasons the opponent might have committed the infraction: sorting the hand afterward for discussion (with TD or with the table) and then failing to re-shuffle it. This does not preclude director action for the infraction, of course.

[blackshoe]

EI may or may not be UI; the only one who can determine that is the TD. That's why, when you pull a sorted hand out of the board, you should call him.

[blackshoe]

Hm. It's certainly extraneous information. Is a player allowed to draw inferences from extraneous information that isn't explicitly declared authorized? Law 16A would seem to say "no". The inferences may turn out to be incorrect, as Agua suggests, but should that let him off the hook (the player, not Agua )?

Added: maybe he's allowed to draw inferences "at his own risk". I don't know, and I'm too tired to look it up.

[mrdct]

There can be several reasons why a hand would come to you sorted:

• hand duplicated (first round only);
  
• machine duplicated from a new deck of cards (first round only);
  
• the player at the previous table was quized on what he had at the end of the hand and sorted it in order to respond;
  
• a very early claim at the previous table;
  
• passed-in at the previous table;
  
• the player at the previous table in the habit of sorting his hand at the end of each board from time to time; or
  
• any of the above combined with an inadequate shuffle (noting that Law 7C is silent as to how thoroughly the shuffle needs to be, whereas in other parts of the Laws and some regulations there is more specific guidance about shuffling).

Assuming we aren't in the first round, to determine the likelihood of 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 you would need to have a fair bit of knowledge about the behaviours of the person who previously held your hand (all of which would be EI and UI). I think the early claim is probably the most common reason, followed by post mortem and passed-in a close third. Attempting to draw any inferences from receiving a sorted hand sounds like a bit of a crap-shoot to me and is certainly unethical.

Note that the Law 7C requirement to shuffle one's hand at the end of play before returning it to the board is a "should" not a "must", and the Laws tell us that failure to comply with a "should" requirement "is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised". As TD, I would track down the person who returned a sorted hand to the board and ask for an explanation and then delicately remind him of the need to shuffle his cards after each hand and that would be it. If he persistently failed to follow that instruction I would then issue a formal warning and if that didn't work I might issue a PP as a last resort.

Under Law 16A3 it is absolutely clear-cut that it would be an infraction to base a call or play on the fact that your hand arrived sorted as this is obviously EI.

On the hand in question, the only people that would ever be entitled to an adjustment would be East-West if South happened to take a successful action indicated by the EI/UI but on the standard of evidence required (enter Pran?) I'd be hard pressed to find South had acted inappropriately unless he freely admitted doing so.

[mrdct]

 blackshoe, on 2011-July-17, 21:04, said:

EI may or may not be UI; the only one who can determine that is the TD. That's why, when you pull a sorted hand out of the board, you should call him.

Can you give me an example of where EI would not be UI?

[iviehoff]

 mrdct, on 2011-July-18, 00:50, said:

Can you give me an example of where EI would not be UI?

It is quite clear at L73D1 that the opponents' variations in the tempo and manner of play are not UI. It is also clear at L73D2 that a player has a right not be misled by extraneous information provided by the opponents, so it would seem that one actually has some protection if one uses any EI provided by the opponents, quite the reverse situation in relation to use of UI.

In the present case OP has correctly drawn attention to 16C. A player should call the director immediately on obtaining such information. Although under 16C2c one of the options the director has is to direct that play should continue and then adjust the score; given that one was instructed to play on I do not think you could be treated as an offending side in an adjustment if you used the information the Director explicitly permitted you to play with.

[gnasher]

This is extraneous information, but not from partner. Therefore the player can't base an action upon the information (16A3), but you're not bound by 16B. That is, the information is unauthorised, but you can bid what you would have done without the unauthorised information.

The information was (probably) received before the board was started, but the director wasn't informed until later. On a literal reading of Law 16 this situation falls into the crack between 16C2 (whihc allows the director take action only before a call is made) and 16C3 (which covers unauthorised information received after the first call of the auction). However, I think the director should rule as though it were covered by 16C3 (if necessary using 12A1 as his justification).

Therefore, the director:
- Tells South to bid what he would have done without the UI
- In the absurd wording of the laws, "stands ready" to award an adjusted score
- Once the board is over, decides whether the UI affected the result, and adjusts the score if necessary. (The Laws don't specify whether the director should be standing or sitting at this point.)
- Gives South a PP for not calling him when he received the UI.
- Gives South at the other table a PP for not shuffling his hand after the board was finished.

[gnasher]

 iviehoff, on 2011-July-18, 02:08, said:

Although under 16C2c one of the options the director has is to direct that play should continue and then adjust the score; given that one was instructed to play on I do not think you could be treated as an offending side in an adjustment if you used the information the Director explicitly permitted you to play with.

I don't think this is a matter of the director's exercising an option - once the auction has started, Law 16 doesn't allow him to stop play of the board.

[mjj29]

I'm still not sure what the correct solution to this is, but one option if we decide that both sides at this table are damaged and non-offending is to award a beneficial score to both sides - which I think is legal everywhere (12C1(f) says "the scores need not balance"), although only in 12C1(e) jurisdictions is it obvious that you're allowed to split in this case (although I think you should be allowed to). Certainly if the previous table had fouled the board it would clearly be AV+ to both sides.

[blackshoe]

It seems I left one thing unclear: this was teams, the board had already been played at the other table. It arrived at the table in question with the South hand sorted. Assuming no one who had no legal right to do so touched the South cards, the South player at the other table must have returned the hand, sorted, to the board.

I'm not sure you can justify a split score in law. It seems you'd be saying "let's treat NS as the NOS wrt to the EI having been provided by the opponents at the other table, and then treat EW as the NOS wrt to South's use of that EI". A novel way to handle the "multiple offenses" dilemma, indeed, but as I say I don't see a justification for it in law.

Once a call has been made on a board, the TD must allow it to be played out (Law 16C3).

Quote

Gnasher: Therefore the player can't base an action upon the information (16A3), but you're not bound by 16B. That is, the information is unauthorised, but you can bid what you would have done without the unauthorised information.

It seems to me that in this case, absent the EI, South might or might not have doubled. The EI tilts the decision in favor of doubling, so doubling is an action based on the EI. If the EI is in fact UI, then this is an infraction of Law 16A3, and 16A4 directs the TD to adjust the score if such infraction causes damage. That's fine, but it doesn't answer the question what should happen if he passes because he has this information, when he could have doubled for a better score if the opponents hadn't put him in this position.

Yes, South should have called the TD as soon as he saw his hand was sorted. Most likely, it seems to me, he was either unaware of that requirement, or just didn't think of it. Yeah, I know, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But again, it was the opponents who put him on the spot.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2011-July-18, 05:15
Reason for edit: It doesn't matter whether it's UI, so I struck out that clause.

[hotShot]

Assume South had overheard someone saying, that at this board all passed at the other table.
Wouldn't we have to decide that the board is unplayable ?

[blackshoe]

In the OP circumstances, that's not relevant, because the TD wasn't called until after the hand was played.

[iviehoff]

 gnasher, on 2011-July-18, 02:30, said:

I don't think this is a matter of the director's exercising an option - once the auction has started, Law 16 doesn't allow him to stop play of the board.

I was referring in general to the circumstances of 16C2, which specifically applies if the information is present and the director is called before a call has yet been made. You can also get to 16C2c via the cross-reference from 16C3, which only applies if the information arrives during the course of the board, and also presumes that the director is called forthwith. If you call the director the moment you get the extraneous information from an outside source, then in any subsequent adjustment you can hardly be treated as the offending side.

If on receiving extraneous information from an outside source you don't call the director at the earliest moment, I don't think you can rely on being held harmless any more. Anyone but a sociopath would feel guilty on receiving such information, so I find it hard to protect someone for their ignorance in such a case. But Blackshoe is right, the extraneous information was the responsibility of the other side at the other table. It is in general difficult to know exactly how to balance a ruling when both sides have misbehaved to some degree.

In the present case, a player acted illegally by failing to shuffle his hand. But it was teams play, so the information went to his direct opponent and if acted upon could only be to the non-shuffler's disadvantage. Do we want to punish the non-shuffler for acting in a way to his own disadvantage, or protect him when he acted illegally? I think not. It seems poetic to leave the table result.

[axman]

 blackshoe, on 2011-July-17, 21:04, said:

EI may or may not be UI; the only one who can determine that is the TD. That's why, when you pull a sorted hand out of the board, you should call him.

I should think that this is something that you must avoid doing before the end of play [or at least prior to you declaring???]. Here you have info???/inferences not available to the others and to call the TD now creates inferences for the others. imo calling the TD immediately will trash the hand.

[nige1]

IMO, South should inform the director, privately and as early as possible.
The director may tell the players to bid and play the board.
In the mean-time the director should establish what happened at the first table.
It is unlikely but possible that South at the first table did shuffle his hand but it still ended up sorted (so it would be harsh to impose a penalty on South at the second table, who can't be sure that an irregularity occurred).
IMO, if the first South didn't shuffle his hand, then the director could scrap the board and impose a penalty on him (rules permitting).
If the first South knew that passing the board out was likely to result in a poor score to his side and could have known that leaving his hand sorted might cause this kind of problem, then the penalty could be severe.

This kind of problem would be less likely if the rule was that, at the end of a hand, players had to sort their hands, rather than shuffle them. In general It would also save time -- but especially for players who have difficulty sorting their hands. (Partner can help you sort your hand after you've played it but not before).

[gnasher]

 axman, on 2011-July-18, 11:03, said:

I should think that this is something that you must avoid doing before the end of play [or at least prior to you declaring???].

No, you should call the director immediately that you receive the information, because that is what Law 16C1 says you should do. If you don't call him, you jeopardise your rights.

Quote

Here you have info???/inferences not available to the others and to call the TD now creates inferences for the others. imo calling the TD immediately will trash the hand.

When the director arrives, you don't have to tell the whole table what you know - you can simply tell the director that you have extraneous information. He will probably then take you away from the table to find out what you know, and then he will judge whether the board can be played.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2011-July-18, 05:12, said:

It seems I left one thing unclear: this was teams, the board had already been played at the other table. It arrived at the table in question with the South hand sorted. Assuming no one who had no legal right to do so touched the South cards, the South player at the other table must have returned the hand, sorted, to the board.

 iviehoff, on 2011-July-18, 09:11, said:

But it was teams play, so the information went to his direct opponent and if acted upon could only be to the non-shuffler's disadvantage.

The fact that the scoring is IMPs does not imply that the board was played in an event with just two teams. If it were a teams event with more than two teams the board that arrived at the table in question was probably not the same board that was played at the other table with the same two teams.

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2011-July-18, 11:19, said:

This kind of problem would be less likely if the rule was that, at the end of a hand, players had to sort their hands, rather than shuffle them. In general It would also save time -- but especially for players who have difficulty sorting their hands.

This would not save time "in general", because most people count their cards before sorting them, and this usually unsorts a sorted hand.

What concerns me is the question of how much of the score would be caused by bridge results, or whether the latter would be completely overwhelmed by PPs given to players who can't be bothered to sort the hand after playing. This is a very unnatural and time-wasting action. Also, what would the penalties be if a hastily sorted hand had some errors? Would it be necessary to check with the person who is going to receive your cards next how they prefer their cards to be sorted? Would someone need to check every hand at a table after which the boards go out of play, or would spot-checks probably be sufficient?

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2011-July-18, 13:27, said:

This would not save time "in general", because most people count their cards before sorting them, and this usually unsorts a sorted hand.

It's very easy to count cards without unsorting them, and most methods I see people use would not. At worse they might reverse the sort, which is easy to undo quickly.