[lamford]

---

Opening Lead K♠. Table result 3NT-1.

This was the last board at a North London Club last night, and was surprisingly the first one at which South, who looks and behaves like a Secretary Bird, requested a ruling. Vicky the Vixen, the club TD, had a quiet night, although she did stop two of the club's better players loudly discussing the difference between a Merrimac Coup and a Deschappelles Coup during the half-time tea-break. This simple-looking hand was soon over. Declarer ducked the spade lead, but West, the club's weakest member, continued the suit and when East, a good player, ducked two rounds of clubs, the contract drifted one off. Walter the Walrus, North, said "Sorry, partner, had to bid game with 10", and continued, looking at the bridgemate, "a bottom for us I am afraid, everyone made it, most with an overtrick". "I don't see why", replied RR,"I cost a trick with my opening lead."

"Nonsense," replied SB, turning to the rabbit. "What possessed you to lead the king of spades, anyway?". "Well", RR replied, "Oscar, who was watching earlier, said that one should lead the highest card in one's hand if a gambling 3NT is passed out".

"Rubbish. I know the deal in question," replied SB, "but that was completely different. There you held ♠Kx and no other high card, so I agree with the Owl that the king of spades is marked after the auction 3NT(opening bid)-All Pass, although finding your partner with AQTxx was a bonus. Surely, not even you are harebrained enough to think that has any relevance here. And, come to think of it," continued SB, "you had UI from another source. You could have worked out that this was the board that triggered the discussion in the bar at half time between Charlie and his partner about the Merrimac Coup, and you breached Law 16C1 in not telling the TD that possibly valuable information had been received. You could also work out that none of the 23 boards to date had a potential Merrimac or Deschappelles Coup, and there was a logical alternative to the king of spades lead and the latter was demonstrably suggested by the UI".

"Director, please," he bellowed.

So how do you rule? And, more importantly, is it "harebrained" or "hairbrained"?

[blackshoe]

"Harebrained".

[blackshoe]

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

You could have worked out that this was the board that triggered the discussion in the bar at half time between Charlie and his partner about the Merrimac Coup, and you breached Law 16C1 in not telling the TD that possibly valuable information had been received.

The Rabbit could have worked that out? Come on, SB, get real.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-08, 23:27, said:

The Rabbit could have worked that out? Come on, SB, get real.

Surely we treat everyone as we would a Probst cheat?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-08, 23:26, said:

"Harebrained".

That is the only version allowed in Words with Friends.

"The current status of hairbrained is disputed: some style guides say that it should not be used, as does the Fourth Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary: “While hairbrained continues to be used and confused, it should be avoided in favor of harebrained which has been established as the correct spelling”. The Third Edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage describes it as an erroneous form “which is still occasionally found” (rather more often than that, Dr Burchfield, as my research shows). Other guides disagree, a case in point being Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage which says, “Our opinion based on the evidence is that it is established”."

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-December-09, 08:30, said:

Surely we treat everyone as we would a Probst cheat?

Do we? Always?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-09, 08:43, said:

Do we? Always?

I think in UI cases we consider the peers of the player as to what they would do. But I think that it is different with UI from another source. If someone overheard the remark "you can even make 7NT on this board", I don't think the TD should take into account the recipient's ability to use that data. But it does say "if the TD judges that unauthorised information could well have affected the result". So, it depends on the TD's judgement, and what "could well" means.

[blackshoe]

Haven't we had a discussion of what "could well" means recently? I don't remember what we concluded, specifically, but it was something like "without difficulty", which is what my dictionary says of it. I don't think the RR "could well" work out all that stuff SB claims he could have.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-09, 09:02, said:

Haven't we had a discussion of what "could well" means recently? I don't remember what we concluded, specifically, but it was something like "without difficulty", which is what my dictionary says of it. I don't think the RR "could well" work out all that stuff SB claims he could have.

So, you would rule against SB on this occasion, but consider adjusting if a coughing German doctor found the king of spades lead?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-December-09, 09:05, said:

So, you would rule against SB on this occasion, but consider adjusting if a coughing German doctor found the king of spades lead?

I would rule that the RR did not breach Law 16C1, because he would not work out that the hand he was playing was the one talked about in the bar. If I suspected actual cheating, I would certainly consider a score adjustment. Among other things.

[barmar]

Can we automatically assume that the discussion during the break was about a hand being played in that session? Couldn't they have been talking about a hand from a previous event, or just talking in generalities?

And if they were discussing a hand during that session within earshot of players who hadn't yet played the board, those players should probably be given a PP for causing this problem. Their discussion is a violation of 90B3 (although that says "overheard at another table", but the list is just examples, so I think it's obvious that being overheard other places should be included).

[lamford]

barmar, on 2014-December-09, 11:26, said:

Can we automatically assume that the discussion during the break was about a hand being played in that session? Couldn't they have been talking about a hand from a previous event, or just talking in generalities?

The two players were asked if they were talking about this board and one stated that he had noticed at the time that only an opening lead of the ♠K would have beaten the contract. The discussion in the bar was just about whether such a lead was a Merrimac Coup or a Deschappelles Coup, and they eventually agreed that it was the former. The latter required an entry to be created in partner's hand rather than being denied to an opponent.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2014-December-09, 11:54, said:

The two players were asked if they were talking about this board and one stated that he had noticed at the time that only an opening lead of the ♠K would have beaten the contract. The discussion in the bar was just about whether such a lead was a Merrimac Coup or a Deschappelles Coup, and they eventually agreed that it was the former. The latter required an entry to be created in partner's hand rather than being denied to an opponent.

Of course, we know after the fact that they were discussing this board. But when West overheard the discussion, did he ask them if they were discussing a current board?

[pran]

barmar, on 2014-December-10, 11:00, said:

Of course, we know after the fact that they were discussing this board. But when West overheard the discussion, did he ask them if they were discussing a current board?

That may not necessarily be relevant.

I remember a situation (from many years ago) in a barometer event (where the same boards are played during the same round at every table) when I was trying to figure out whether to go for slam or just bid game. It was a borderline decision, and while I was concentrating I suddenly overheard a remark to the effect something like "slam makes" or "slam fails" (I don't remember which way it was, and that doesn't really matter).

To this date I still don't know if that remark applied to a board from a previous round, another board in the current round or even the very board I was trying to concentrate on.

But it completely derailed me. Now I found it impossible to make any rational decision so I called the director and requested an artificial adjusted score on the board, explaining why.

My request was granted.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2014-December-10, 11:00, said:

Of course, we know after the fact that they were discussing this board. But when West overheard the discussion, did he ask them if they were discussing a current board?

The rabbit would not have even known they were talking about bridge. For all he knew the Merrimac and Deschappelles coups might have been military takeovers. But he could have been aware ...

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-December-10, 17:30, said:

The rabbit would not have even known they were talking about bridge. For all he knew the Merrimac and Deschappelles coups might have been military takeovers. But he could have been aware ...

When pigs fly. No disrespect to the rabbit intended.

[barmar]

pran, on 2014-December-10, 16:28, said:

But it completely derailed me. Now I found it impossible to make any rational decision so I called the director and requested an artificial adjusted score on the board, explaining why.

My request was granted.

That's amazing -- I doubt very much that this is what was intended by that Law. If that's what the Lawmakers wanted, they probably would have allowed you to request an AAS because your train of thought was derailed by a loud sneeze, or being upset because you overhear that someone had a personal tragedy. I think the extraneous remark has to specifically prevent normal bridge thought processes, not thoughts in general.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2014-December-11, 07:53, said:

That's amazing -- I doubt very much that this is what was intended by that Law. If that's what the Lawmakers wanted, they probably would have allowed you to request an AAS because your train of thought was derailed by a loud sneeze, or being upset because you overhear that someone had a personal tragedy. I think the extraneous remark has to specifically prevent normal bridge thought processes, not thoughts in general.

But the likelihood is that the comment was about a board in the current round.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2014-December-11, 08:12, said:

But the likelihood is that the comment was about a board in the current round.

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?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2014-December-11, 07:53, said:

I think the extraneous remark has to specifically prevent normal bridge thought processes, not thoughts in general.

I think "thought processes" is going too far as the rabbit is concerned, certainly for the player at this particular North London club. However, it is not too far a flight of fancy to consider the rabbit being rebuked for not leading from Kx of spades against a gambling 3NT in the first half, to hear the conversation in the bar and vaguely to grasp that it is the lead of an unsupported honour, and come to try it, inappropriately, on this last board noting that 3NT was passed out and not being able to recognise a "gambling" 3NT if it did occur, with spectacular results. It is the TD's judgement whether that "could well" have happened, and whether the result on this board "could well" have been influenced by the UI. And I think that "could well" in this context means "with some significant probability", and certainly not 50% as at least one eminent TD suggested. My view is that the facts strongly suggest this DID happen and an adjustment is called for.

And how would you rule if the facts were as described, but Sharp or Keen had led the king of spades?