[pran]

barmar, on 2014-January-16, 12:57, said:

What the player should do is call the director without telling the others at the table why he's doing it. The TD can then determine whether the whole deal is a repeat. If it is, he can discard it; if not, play continues and the other players have no extraneous information.

And the other players will simply sit there dumb and ignorant not wondering why the director was called, or still worse: Drawing their own conclusions?

By all means let him call the director but not until the play of the board is ended.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-January-16, 15:32, said:

And the other players will simply sit there dumb and ignorant not wondering why the director was called, or still worse: Drawing their own conclusions?

By all means let him call the director but not until the play of the board is ended.

When you think something irregular has happened, you should call the director. If it's something he can fix when you call him, and you wait, and then he can't fix it, you've screwed up. Players are not required to know all the nuances of the law - they will rarely have a clue whether the TD can fix something "now" or must wait. The exception to this, of course, is when the law specifically tells you when to call, for example, immediately when you realized you mis-explained an agreement, or "when play ends" for a possible use of UI. Even that, though, players will need a little experience to get straight.

If a player is aware that whatever the problem is can't be fixed right away, then sure, he can wait. But that's unlikely even among players with some experience — and don't forget, the event in the op occurred in a 299er section.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-16, 23:54, said:

When you think something irregular has happened, you should call the director. If it's something he can fix when you call him, and you wait, and then he can't fix it, you've screwed up. Players are not required to know all the nuances of the law - they will rarely have a clue whether the TD can fix something "now" or must wait. The exception to this, of course, is when the law specifically tells you when to call, for example, immediately when you realized you mis-explained an agreement, or "when play ends" for a possible use of UI. Even that, though, players will need a little experience to get straight.

If a player is aware that whatever the problem is can't be fixed right away, then sure, he can wait. But that's unlikely even among players with some experience — and don't forget, the event in the op occurred in a 299er section.

If you consider it an irregularity that you pick up a hand that is astonishly similar to a hand you have already played then fine, do go ahead and call the director.

But I will consider it a remarkable coincidence until I have better indications that there really is an irregularity, and not cause any curiosity among the other players that there might be something special with my own hand.

And if there really is an irregularity of the kind we discuss it makes no real difference if the director call is delayed until we have finished up the board.


I have little or no idea what is meant by a 299er session but guess that it implies inexperienced players. So what?


How would you rule if a player picks up his cards, exclaims for everybody to hear: "Gee, I have had this hand already", and it turns out that while he is correct he is the only player at the table having the same hand in two different deals?

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-January-17, 02:20, said:

I have little or no idea what is meant by a 299er session but guess that it implies inexperienced players. So what?

Your guess is correct. So what? So they aren't going to have a clue when is the appropriate time to call the director. It's hard enough to get them to call at all.

pran, on 2014-January-17, 02:20, said:

How would you rule if a player picks up his cards, exclaims for everybody to hear: "Gee, I have had this hand already", and it turns out that while he is correct he is the only player at the table having the same hand in two different deals?

So long as he didn't disclose anything specific about his hand, I would tell the table there is no UI, the duplication is coincidence, and to get on with the game. Provided, of course, that the 52 cards in this board make a proper deck. Yes, I know, my saying that gives him the UI that the other three hands won't be the ones he remembers - if he remembers them - from the previous board. So what? That information is unlikely to do him any good.

[pran]

pran, on 2014-January-17, 02:20, said:

How would you rule if a player picks up his cards, exclaims for everybody to hear: "Gee, I have had this hand already", and it turns out that while he is correct he is the only player at the table having the same hand in two different deals?

blackshoe, on 2014-January-17, 02:39, said:

So long as he didn't disclose anything specific about his hand, I would tell the table there is no UI, the duplication is coincidence, and to get on with the game. Provided, of course, that the 52 cards in this board make a proper deck. Yes, I know, my saying that gives him the UI that the other three hands won't be the ones he remembers - if he remembers them - from the previous board. So what? That information is unlikely to do him any good.

I'm afraid he has disclosed quite a lot already, and more to come as play progresses. And I am not worrying about what good it will do him, it is the other three players at the table I am worried about. They may find themselves in a very awkward situation.

[campboy]

If I look at my hand and realise it is the same as one I've played already then I think I am required to call the TD "forthwith": law 16C1.

[pran]

campboy, on 2014-January-17, 04:28, said:

If I look at my hand and realise it is the same as one I've played already then I think I am required to call the TD "forthwith": law 16C1.

Then please explain how (without seeing the other three hands) you "knew" that the entire deal and not only your hand was a duplicate ?

Although the probability is extremely low it has happened that one player (without any irregularity) had the exact same 13 cards on two different boards.


Added: I think that in a situation like this, when finding that your deliberate action has given the other three players too much information to permit normal play of the board possible I would rule:
1: Ave+ to your opponents and Ave- to you
2: A procedural penalty of 40% of the top score on a board to you.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2014-January-17, 02:20, said:

How would you rule if a player picks up his cards, exclaims for everybody to hear: "Gee, I have had this hand already", and it turns out that while he is correct he is the only player at the table having the same hand in two different deals?

I'd rule that, on the balance of probabilities, there had been a breach of Law 6. Suppose we have 26 boards in play, with each player keeping the same orientation. The chance of any two hands for the same direction being identical through random dealing is about 1 in 2,000,000,000.

[axman]

pran, on 2014-January-17, 04:42, said:

Then please explain how (without seeing the other three hands) you "knew" that the entire deal and not only your hand was a duplicate ?

Although the probability is extremely low it has happened that one player (without any irregularity) had the exact same 13 cards on two different boards.


Added: I think that in a situation like this, when finding that your deliberate action has given the other three players too much information to permit normal play of the board possible I would rule:
1: Ave+ to your opponents and Ave- to you
2: A procedural penalty of 40% of the top score on a board to you.

Pran is spot on that a player’s suspicion is not sufficient to cause a correctly prepared board to be fouled.

However, there is a general impression that the fact of two boards being identical is sufficient alone to rule one of them is a fouled board. Not so. If boards are correctly prepared, then they are to be played- including when they are identical. In other words, once a board has been started, the time to investigate [draw attention to one’s suspicion] is upon completion. To draw attention earlier is to provide inferences to partner as to the cards one holds other than by call or play- and that fouls the board.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2014-January-17, 05:02, said:

I'd rule that, on the balance of probabilities, there had been a breach of Law 6. Suppose we had 26 boards in play, with each player keeping the same orientation. The chance of any two hands for the same direction being identical through random dealing is about 1 in 2,000,000,000.

Probabilities like this have absolutely no relevance when the available facts prove beyond any doubt that there is no violation of Law 6 (or any other Law).

(Note that I don't even write "reasonable" doubt.)

The essense of my posts is that a player must never assert that a deal has been duplicated illegally just because he recognizes his own 13 cards from a previous board. He must await confirmation from knowledge of the other 39 cards in the deal, or delay calling the director with his suspicion until play of that board is completed at his table.

[barmar]

I suppose if the board is going to be thrown out anyway, there's no rush to call the TD.

The essence of my suggestion was that while the other players may speculate about why the player called the TD, I don't think they're necessarily going to guess right. And even if they do suspect that you think the deal has been repeated, they won't know which board your hand is identical to, so the potential information you're giving them is not very useful (unless it's very early in the session, so there are only a few possibilities).

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-16, 23:54, said:

Players are not required to know all the nuances of the law - they will rarely have a clue whether the TD can fix something "now" or must wait. The exception to this, of course, is when the law specifically tells you when to call, for example, immediately when you realized you mis-explained an agreement, or "when play ends" for a possible use of UI.

Isn't that a Catch-22? "When to call the director" is a nuance of the law, isn't it?

E.g. a defender isn't supposed to correct a misexplanation until play ends. But I think he can call the director earlier, without explaining why to the other players, so that the director can tell him when to correct the misexplanation.

I think players are always permitted to call the director if they suspect something has gone wrong. It's the director's job to determine if the suspicion is well founded, and whether it's actually an infraction, the player doesn't have to wait for assurance. Better safe than sorry.

[mycroft]

When I am called in that case (defender asking at the end of the auction to talk to me away from the table), I always explain the law, as I should, and then come to the table to explain that any information one can work out from this person wanting to speak to me is UI to partner and authorized to opponents, and rule that way.

It's unfortunate, but frankly, why else would someone call the TD, in a way that they're uncomfortable talking at the table, at the end of the auction? (I guess the case in the OP, true).

When to call the TD over misinformation (and whether to call the TD over own misbid) is one of those few Laws that it really is in the player's best interest to know, because otherwise they will damage their own side.

[campboy]

pran, on 2014-January-17, 04:42, said:

Then please explain how (without seeing the other three hands) you "knew" that the entire deal and not only your hand was a duplicate ?

Although the probability is extremely low it has happened that one player (without any irregularity) had the exact same 13 cards on two different boards.

I don't have to "know". I have information which means that the opponents are very likely to have particular hands. That information is extraneous. It is very rare for UI to tell you anything beyond a shadow of doubt, but I am still constrained when UI tells me that a particular situation is much more likely than it would otherwise be.

[GreenMan]

pran, on 2014-January-17, 02:20, said:

How would you rule if a player picks up his cards, exclaims for everybody to hear: "Gee, I have had this hand already", and it turns out that while he is correct he is the only player at the table having the same hand in two different deals?

I've seen this happen. I was kibbing Jill Myers in the final of a team event, and two boards after she had a 4414 14-count she picked up another 4414 14-count and said "We've played this already." Her hand was not card-for-card identical, but it was similar enough to fool her. The players should have called the director but didn't, and no further problems arose on the board.

[Fluffy]

There was that large simultaneus, oriented towards ACBL members of course since it was hosted by some american company, who didn't think properly and decided to use boards of an european championship held coupld of years ago.

3 Spannish masters played that set for a second time o the simultaneous, and director told them to stay silent and play without saying anything. For the most part they wouldn't remember the boards untill 26 cards were visible, permutations of 13 cards for players who play thousands a year are not highly significative. Exception was slam biddings were they remembered a couple of boards where a key queen was offside or trumps broke 4-1.