[lamford]

---

This was the last board of a match at the North London club this week, and SB suspected that all was not well. South, Charlie the Chimp, had taken 8 boards to the other table (he did not allow RR, North, to do this as he frequently delivered the boards in error to the duplicate which was also going on) and he came back with 7, as often happens when the match is played in the same room. The other board was brought shortly after. When it was played, ChCh produced an imaginative sacrifice over the East-West slam, which only cost 800. This turned out to only be a flat board, however, as North had bid an unusual 2NT in the other room, and South had no difficulty finding the sac at favourable vulnerability when his partner was known to have a spade void.

SB was not happy. "When you collected seven boards from the other table," he started on the Chimp, "I think you saw that N-S were declaring the contract, or you concluded because North brought you the seven boards, that he was dummy". You managed to work out that the only way you could be declarer was if North had bid an unusual 2NT, as if North had made a weak jump overcall in diamonds, he would have played the hand."

The Chimp was lost for words for once. "I did not get within four yards of the other table, he said. Ask the Toucan, North at the other table. I stood far enough away that I could not see who was declarer".

"I don't buy it," replied SB, "somebody with an appalling reputation for sub-standard ethics such as you could well have bid 7♦ based on UI from another source". "Not so," replied the Chimp, "I just guessed that 7D would be cheap, and RR does not bid when he should as you know."

How do you rule?

[sanst]

Tar and feathers for SB. An accusation like that without a shred of evidence not to mention the remark about sub-standard ethics, asks for the severest penalty possible. Banish him for life. But knowing the sub-standard ways of this club, that won't happen.

[axman]

lamford, on 2017-February-13, 11:01, said:

This was the last board of a match at the North London club this week, and SB suspected that all was not well. South, Charlie the Chimp, had taken 8 boards to the other table (he did not allow RR, North, to do this as he frequently delivered the boards in error to the duplicate which was also going on) and he came back with 7, as often happens when the match is played in the same room. The other board was brought shortly after. When it was played, ChCh produced an imaginative sacrifice over the East-West slam, which only cost 800. This turned out to only be a flat board, however, as North had bid an unusual 2NT in the other room, and South had no difficult finding the sac at favourable vulnerability when his partner was known to have a spade void.

SB was not happy. "When you collected seven boards from the other table," he started on the Chimp, "I think you saw that N-S were declaring the contract, or you concluded because North brought you the seven boards, that he was dummy". You managed to work out that the only way you could be declarer was if North had bid an unusual 2NT, as if North had made a weak jump overcall in diamonds, he would have played the hand."

The Chimp was lost for words for once. "I did not get within four yards of the other table, he said. Ask the Toucan, North at the other table. I stood far enough away that I could not see who was declarer".

"I don't buy it," replied SB, "somebody with an appalling reputation for sub-standard ethics such as you could well have bid 7♦ based on UI from another source". "Not so," replied the Chimp, "I just guessed that 7D would be cheap, and RR does not bid when he should as you know."

How do you rule?

I rule that caddies move the boards. Oh, the TD doesn't want to do caddy work, then make some relay stands and run the event the right way.

[billw55]

On the surface, this seems like an obvious "buzz off" ruling for SB, perhaps with a ZT penalty.

However I'm going to give lamford the benefit of the doubt that there must be something worthwhile to consider here. Not sure what it is, but I expect he will let us know before too long

[barmar]

Is SB taking lessons from Donald Trump? It seems like he got the idea of ChCh's UI from the same place as the 3 million illegal votes in California. #FakeNews.

[blackshoe]

Does this club have an ethics committee?

[weejonnie]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-13, 15:22, said:

Does this club have an ethics committee?

The Griffins does - or at least a Monster Points committee, which came to the same thing (HH is technical assistant: although he is usually not given the names of the offenders, to avoid prejudice, sometimes he needs them to ascertain their abilities/ foibles).

Naturally I would find out from the Toucan what happened in the other room - however the basic premise of this discussion is at fault - RR is an enthusiastic user of conventions and I cannot believe he would not use the 2NT overcall: both as Unusual and Roman at the same time. However, the only possible law to consider seems to be 16C (current)/ 16D (new) - (UI/ Extraneous Information from other sources): there is no concrete evidence, but I would observe that ChCh knew the Toucan was North and if The Toucan could see the Chimp then the Chimp must have been in front of the Toucan - and hence able to see that there were cards on the table in front of him. I would also note that if the Chimp was in front of the Toucan then he was probably behind South, the declarer, so, unless he was familiar with the backside of the declarer, "could not see who was declarer".

[sfi]

lamford, on 2017-February-13, 11:01, said:

How do you rule?

The ruling question is a tiny part of this. Unless there is evidence South overheard something there is no reason within the laws to adjust.

The public accusation is much bigger - this sort of behaviour is simply unacceptable. This last time I heard something like this at a club, the person doing so received a ban of several years. Whether or not the accusation is accurate I would expect the appropriate club committee to at least consider a life ban for the SB.

Oh yeah, South's actions should be investigated as well. It looks pretty fishy.

[sanst]

sfi, on 2017-February-13, 17:19, said:

Oh yeah, South's actions should be investigated as well. It looks pretty fishy.

Why? Years back, when I was still young at heart and rather new at the game, playing with a new partner, I bid 7♣ in a situation like this. Pity my partner had diamonds and didn't correct. Was that fishy as well?

[lamford]

sanst, on 2017-February-14, 04:06, said:

Why? Years back, when I was still young and heart and rather new at the game, playing with a new partner, I bid 7♣ in a situation like this. Pity my partner had diamonds and didn't correct. Was that fishy as well?

The TD spoke to North at the other table, Timothy the Toucan, who stated that he gave the 7 boards to ChCh STANDING UP BY HIS CHAIR. TT was indeed dummy at the other table, as the score of 7Dx-4 showed. For completeness that auction had been 1S-(2NT)-3D (good raise)-)(5D)-5H (last train)-(P)-6S-(7D)-X-All Pass. TT thought that ChCh took the boards with his back to the table, a bit like a relay runner, but he could not be sure whether ChCh could see who was declarer. The TD found that the following statement was clearly false: "I did not get within four yards of the other table". The TD decided that there was not enough evidence, however, to change the score. although he thought on the balance of probability that the allegation by SB was probably true. He gave both SB and ChCh disciplinary penalties (the former for the allegation, the latter for lying) and asked the committee to have a table in the middle of the room for played boards to be exchanged in future.

SB was still not happy. "The difference between you and me, ChCh", he said, "is that I exploit the Laws legally, whereas you do it illegally". The TD gave him a second DP for this remark. That was not quite enough to swing the match, however, still won by SB's team.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2017-February-13, 16:46, said:

TI cannot believe he would not use the 2NT overcall: both as Unusual and Roman at the same time.

RR is only allowed to use 2NT in this partnership in all positions to show 20-22, as he often mixes up the unusual 2NT with the balancing 2NT in the pass out seat (and has often confused it with the Jacoby 2NT). ChCh goaded SB by suggesting that RR should play 2NT as unusual except when the board was the last one to be played at the other table.