[StevenG]

I think Lamford's interpretation of his construction suggests that if any player makes a remark about bridge which is overheard, then all future boards effectively become unplayable by the whole room.

[lamford]

StevenG, on 2014-December-11, 08:48, said:

I think Lamford's interpretation of his construction suggests that if any player makes a remark about bridge which is overheard, then all future boards effectively become unplayable by the whole room.

Not at all. Only when the TD judges that the UI "could well" have affected the result. He judged that the other 11 boards after half-time where the king of spades lead was not led were unaffected. The rabbit had, by then, the additional UI that no potential Merrimac or Deschappelles Coup had appeared in boards 1-23, so he could have been aware that this was his chance for glory.

If I had been on lead with this hand, I would have called the TD and stated that I could now work out that the most likely MC was the king of spades lead, and that the board could not be played because of the UI.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-December-11, 09:03, said:

If I had been on lead with this hand, I would called the TD and stated that I could now work out that the most likely MC was the king of spades lead, and that the board could not be played because of the UI.

Yes, but you have a better memory, and a better understanding of bridge, than does the rabbit.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-11, 09:16, said:

Yes, but you have a better memory, and a better understanding of bridge, than does the rabbit.

Indeed; the rabbit could well have led the king of spades for completely the wrong reasons, but he may well not have led it but for the UI.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-December-11, 09:20, said:

Indeed; the rabbit could well have led the king of spades for completely the wrong reasons, but he may well not have led it but for the UI.

I would buy "might not have led it". "May well not have led it" I'm not so sure about. Convince me — keeping in mind this is the rabbit we're talking about.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-11, 10:01, said:

I would buy "might not have led it". "May well not have led it" I'm not so sure about. Convince me — keeping in mind this is the rabbit we're talking about.

The benchmark for the TD is whether "the information could interfere with normal play". There is no requirement for him to judge whether it did. And the word "could" includes any possibility, however small.

[pran]

barmar, on 2014-December-11, 08:18, said:

So it didn't just break your concentration (that's how I interpreted "completely derailed me"), you actually were thinking about whether the comment was about a board you were (or shortly would be) playing?

I couldn't ignore the (high) probability that the comment was about the very board I was working on in my auction and relating to just the question I was considering.

Therefore I was in possession of Law 16C1 type extraneous information which made it impossible for me to honestly choose between game and (trying for) slam without being influenced by the comment.

But as I stated: I have never been able to find out whether they were actually talking about this particular board (which they obviously had just completed) or an entirely different board. However, the damage was already done.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2014-December-11, 09:03, said:

Not at all. Only when the TD judges that the UI "could well" have affected the result. He judged that the other 11 boards after half-time where the king of spades lead was not led were unaffected. The rabbit had, by then, the additional UI that no potential Merrimac or Deschappelles Coup had appeared in boards 1-23, so he could have been aware that this was his chance for glory.

For all the Rabbit knew, there were 5 other hands that had potential Merrimac or Deschappelles Coups, he just didn't notice them -- either because he's the Rabbit and they flew by him, or because it was actually perpetrated by someone in a different seat.

Quote

If I had been on lead with this hand, I would have called the TD and stated that I could now work out that the most likely MC was the king of spades lead, and that the board could not be played because of the UI.

In your case, I'll omit the "because he's the Rabbit" possibility. But you could still be mistaken about which seat had the potential coup lead.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2014-December-12, 16:10, said:

In your case, I'll omit the "because he's the Rabbit" possibility. But you could still be mistaken about which seat had the potential coup lead.

I am flattered. I could indeed be mistaken about which seat had the potential coup lead, but the unusual lead of the king of spades has gone up dramatically in view of the UI. And the normal low spade lead is very unlikely to provide the opportunity for a Merrimac later in the play. Indeed I failed miserably to construct a layout where there was a Merrimac, but the king of spades was not it.

[barmar]

"gone up dramatically"? I'd say it has done up somewhat, but I'm not sure it would be so persuasive that I'd actually attempt it.

But maybe that lack of creative thinking is why I never made it to the second day of any of the national events I entered last week. Does that mean I'm even more clueless than RR?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2014-December-12, 16:25, said:

"gone up dramatically"? I'd say it has done up somewhat, but I'm not sure it would be so persuasive that I'd actually attempt it.

But maybe that lack of creative thinking is why I never made it to the second day of any of the national events I entered last week. Does that mean I'm even more clueless than RR?

It would be an infraction to attempt it (a breach of 16A1a among others), but not an infraction to think of doing it. It is certainly not an infraction to construct a hand where it is the only lead. And, only if you know that there was a successful Merrimac Coup on this board, then I would rate the opening lead of the king of spades to be odds on to be it.

[barmar]

Sure, if you overheard them saying "Was that a Merrimack or Deschappelle's Coup on Board 20", and you're playing Board 20, it would be a very significant bit of information.

But just hearing someone talk about these coups, and noticing on the last board of the night that you haven't noticed such an opportunity yet, seems like a stretch.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2014-December-08, 23:05, said:

there was a logical alternative to the king of spades lead and the latter was demonstrably suggested by the UI".

That's irrelevant. West didn't receive the UI from his partner, so 16B doesn't apply. The relevant law regarding West's choice of actions is 16A3: "No player may base a call or play on other information".

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2014-December-09, 08:36, said:

"The current status of hairbrained is disputed

Only amongst those who are themselves harebrained. The word means "with the brains of a hare", not "with brains made of hair".

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2014-December-14, 14:01, said:

Only amongst those who are themselves harebrained. The word means "with the brains of a hare", not "with brains made of hair".

"The first use of harebrained dates to 1548. The spelling hairbrained also has a long history, going back to the 1500s when hair was a variant spelling of hare. The hair variant was preserved in Scotland into the 18th century, and as a result it is impossible to tell exactly when people began writing hairbrained in the belief that the word means "having a hair-sized brain" rather than "with no more sense than a hare." While hairbrained continues to be used and confused, it should be avoided in favor of harebrained which has been established as the correct spelling."

But it is good to see that you are the ultimate authority on the subject.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2014-December-14, 13:57, said:

That's irrelevant. West didn't receive the UI from his partner, so 16B doesn't apply. The relevant law regarding West's choice of actions is 16A3: "No player may base a call or play on other information".

It was not I that stated that. It was SB. I did not say that I agreed with it; I was merely reporting what happened at a North London club. I have suggested that the score possibly should be adjusted because the UI could have affected the result, and for no other reason. And only then if the TD considers the UI could have done so. And I already offered the opinion (in post 31) that 16A1 could have been breached, but you could equally argue 16A3 was at the same time.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2014-December-14, 16:08, said:

It was not I that stated that.

In your post you asked "how do you rule?". Part of that ruling (one of the easy bits) is to explain which laws apply and which do not.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2014-December-14, 16:06, said:

"The first use of harebrained dates to 1548. The spelling hairbrained also has a long history, going back to the 1500s when hair was a variant spelling of hare. The hair variant was preserved in Scotland into the 18th century, and as a result it is impossible to tell exactly when people began writing hairbrained in the belief that the word means "having a hair-sized brain" rather than "with no more sense than a hare." While hairbrained continues to be used and confused, it should be avoided in favor of harebrained which has been established as the correct spelling."

But it is good to see that you are the ultimate authority on the subject.

When "hair" was a variant spelling of "hare", it was acceptable to use "hairbrained" as a variant spelling of "harebrained". Now that "hair" is not a variant spelling of "hare", it's no longer correct to write "hairbrained" either.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2014-December-14, 17:21, said:

When "hair" was a variant spelling of "hare", it was acceptable to use "hairbrained" as a variant spelling of "harebrained". Now that "hair" is not a variant spelling of "hare", it's no longer correct to write "hairbrained" either.

Tell the Scrabble players that YCLEPT, or for that matter YCLEPED, is not an acceptable alternative spelling of CALLED. And do you regard GECLYPOD or GECLIPOD as correct?

[blackshoe]

Folks, take this debate on words elsewhere, please.