Which Law?

[bluejak]

I have been enjoying myself in London, though suffering from the excellent dress sense of one of our regular contributors who is determined to put all the EBU TDs in the shade sartorially.

 

While I have kept notes on a dozen or so cases so far, I do not have them with me. But in one of them there are two questions, first, what we think of the judgement, second, what we think is the Law. I can give the whole hand later, but let me just ask the legal question.

 

All four players turn their cards down. The defender who won the trick has forgotten what his partner played so asks to see it. Contrary to Law, his partner turns his card face up. He now plays the correct card to the next trick.

 

The TD decides that if he had not turned his card up and assuming his partner had forgotten that he would go wrong a percentage of the time, but get it right some of the time.

 

Under which Law does he adjust?

[blackshoe]

Knee-jerk, off the top of my head reaction: 12A1. Now I'll go read the law book. :(

[axman]

While I have kept notes on a dozen or so cases so far, I do not have them with me. But in one of them there are two questions, first, what we think of the judgement, second, what we think is the Law. I can give the whole hand later, but let me just ask the legal question.

 

All four players turn their cards down. The defender who won the trick has forgotten what his partner played so asks to see it. Contrary to Law, his partner turns his card face up. He now plays the correct card to the next trick.

 

The TD decides that if he had not turned his card up and assuming his partner had forgotten that he would go wrong a percentage of the time, but get it right some of the time.

 

Under which Law does he adjust?

I would not adjust without all the facts.

 

I would judge that the asking post quitting the trick is not in accordance with L66A.

I would judge that the subsequent facing of the card is a breach of L66C.

 

L90A provides PPs for breaches of procdure and each defender rates 25%.

[blackshoe]

The amount of a PP is left by the law to TD discretion. I understand that various places have a "standard" PP, perhaps even by regulation, but if it's not a regulation, the TD doesn't have to follow it, and if it is a regulation, I'm not at all sure that's legal. It doesn't conflict with the letter of the law, but it seems to me to conflict with the spirit. That said, if you judge 25% is appropriate, be my guest. :D

 

The question was not what adjustment you would make, but which law (if any) allows you to adjust at all. At least, that's how I read it.

[pran]

The TD decides that if he had not turned his card up and assuming his partner had forgotten that he would go wrong a percentage of the time, but get it right some of the time.

 

Under which Law does he adjust?

Law 66C => Law 16B => Law 12C

 

Simple rulings?

[PeterE]

The TD decides that if he had not turned his card up and assuming his partner had forgotten that he would go wrong a percentage of the time, but get it right some of the time.

 

Under which Law does he adjust?

Ahhh, that's tricky :D

 

TD's decision sounds like a Law 12 C1c ruling. Ok, that's easy.

 

But how did the TD reach Law 12 C1c ??

 

If he did via Law 12 A1 then it is ok.

But if he did via Law 16 B, he might have problem, if his name is not Grattan :D because then his decision would be a so called "Revely Ruling" in England.

 

Law 16 B1a says "... the partner may not chose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information."

 

One party argues that - as taking advantage of the (re-)turned card is an infraction - it (finding the right lead) could not be a part of a weighted score.

The other (Grattanese) party argues that Law 12 C1c allows the TD to include every action together with its a priori probability when doing equity.

 

I can see merits in both views and I'm not sure which view to follow and therefore I seek clarification in San Remo ...

[pran]

The TD decides that if he had not turned his card up and assuming his partner had forgotten that he would go wrong a percentage of the time, but get it right some of the time.

 

Under which Law does he adjust?

Ahhh, that's tricky :)

 

TD's decision sounds like a Law 12 C1c ruling. Ok, that's easy.

 

But how did the TD reach Law 12 C1c ??

 

If he did via Law 12 A1 then it is ok.

But if he did via Law 16 B, he might have problem, if his name is not Grattan ;) because then his decision would be a so called "Revely Ruling" in England.

 

Law 16 B1a says "... the partner may not chose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information."

 

..........

And Law 16B continues with:

 

3. When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends**. The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

 

What's the problem with reaching Law 12C?

[mjj29]

What's the problem with reaching Law 12C?

The problem is whether you can include any portion of the table result in the weighting. I was the TD at the table (table result was -1, any other lead gives +1). On David's advice I ruled 75% of table result and 25% of +1. Making the correct return is pretty obvious in my view, so the 25% is generous to the NOS, but there is some chance that at MPs she may have decided to make a passive return, hence including it. If 12A1 is used to adjust, then this is fine. If 16C is used to adjust then I have to either decide that there was no LA or decide that there was, in which case weighting in the table result is a Revely ruling and illegal (at least in the EBU's eyes).

 

Assigning a PP is, of course, a different matter. I chose to give a verbal warning.

[jallerton]

The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

 

The only potential legal effect of the law violation was to provide unauthorised information to the player's partner. As Law 16A "provides indemnity" for unauthorised information from partner (when demonstrably suggested logical alternatives exist), Law 12A1 does not apply.

[blackshoe]

Nit: Law 16A provides indemnity from the recipient's use of UI, not from the original provision of the UI, which is not in itself an infraction.

 

Still, I think the UI question is a bit of a red herring. It is Law 66C that was violated, and that law provides no rectification. That leads to 12A, and btw does so independently of the question of use of UI.

[pran]

Nit: Law 16A provides indemnity from the recipient's use of UI, not from the original provision of the UI, which is not in itself an infraction.

 

Still, I think the UI question is a bit of a red herring. It is Law 66C that was violated, and that law provides no rectification. That leads to 12A, and btw does so independently of the question of use of UI.

The consequence of violating Law 66C is that partner receives unauthorized information, and that brings us directly (or if you prefer via Law 73) to law 16B and from there on to Law 12C.

 

As for including the table result in a weighted adjusted score; yes that must be perfectly OK unless the table result could never be the result without the infraction. (In which case the weight for this result would of course be 0%)

[pran]

What's the problem with reaching Law 12C?

The problem is whether you can include any portion of the table result in the weighting. I was the TD at the table (table result was -1, any other lead gives +1). On David's advice I ruled 75% of table result and 25% of +1. Making the correct return is pretty obvious in my view, so the 25% is generous to the NOS, but there is some chance that at MPs she may have decided to make a passive return, hence including it. If 12A1 is used to adjust, then this is fine. If 16C is used to adjust then I have to either decide that there was no LA or decide that there was, in which case weighting in the table result is a Revely ruling and illegal (at least in the EBU's eyes).

 

Assigning a PP is, of course, a different matter. I chose to give a verbal warning.

If the table result is legally possible with a certain probability it must of course be included with this probability as the weight when calculating a weighted score.

[bluejak]

Ignoring the posts that decided [as usual] not to bother to answer the question asked, it is interesting how certain most of the others are. :)

 

Ok, either we rule under UI or we do not. The argument for ruling under UI might be strong, but no-one seems to have produced much of argument except that it is obvious. Well, it is not obvious to me. The argument for ruling under 12A1 is pretty obvious but not convincing: if it is not a UI case then we rule under 12A1 faute de mieux.

 

So, can anyone produce a convincing argument that it is a UI case? Or not?

[blackshoe]

Supoose we agree that there are two possible roads to score adjustment. One is more complex than the other. Why take the more complex road?

[PeterE]

So, can anyone produce a convincing argument that it is a UI case?  Or not?

1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:

a ) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or

b ) it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or

c ) it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or

d ) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.

 

2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations.

 

3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).

 

4. If there is a violation of this law causing damage the Director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12C.

The 2007 code changed its attitude towards information being either authorized or extraneous. It gives a positive list of authorized information and declares everything else as extraneous. And Law 16 is universal and always applicable; it hasn't to be referenced by another law.

[pran]

Ignoring the posts that decided [as usual] not to bother to answer the question asked, it is interesting how certain most of the others are.  :unsure:

 

Ok, either we rule under UI or we do not.  The argument for ruling under UI might be strong, but no-one seems to have produced much of argument except that it is obvious.  Well, it is not obvious to me.  The argument for ruling under 12A1 is pretty obvious but not convincing: if it is not a UI case then we rule under 12A1 faute de mieux.

 

So, can anyone produce a convincing argument that it is a UI case?  Or not?

From Law 16:

 

A. Players’ Use of Information

1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:

a: it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or

b: it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or

c: it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or

d: it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.

2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations.

3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).

4. If there is a violation of this law causing damage the Director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12C.

B. Extraneous Information from Partner

1. a: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

 

From Law 66:

 

C. Quitted Tricks

Thereafter, until play ceases, the cards of quitted tricks may not be inspected (except at the Director’s specific instruction; for example, if necessary to verify a claim of a revoke).

 

If this isn't convincing argument that information from partner exposing any of his played cards in violation of Law 66C is unauthorized I don't know what can be UI at all. It should be unneccessary to point out that the list of actions in Law 16 B1a is not exhaustive.

[pran]

Supoose we agree that there are two possible roads to score adjustment. One is more complex than the other. Why take the more complex road?

Law 12A2:

The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below).

 

From Law 12C2a:

When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score .....

 

I don't know about ACBL, but in Norway the Director should never award an artificial adjusted score for simplicity (except as explicitly allowed in Law 12C1d).

[Cascade]

There is violation of Law 66C

 

Which provides no rectification Law 84D

 

Therefore use Law 12

 

This all seems rather obvious.

 

UI seems to be a red herring.

[bluejak]

The 2007 code changed its attitude towards information being either authorized or extraneous. It gives a positive list of authorized information and declares everything else as extraneous. And Law 16 is universal and always applicable; it hasn't to be referenced by another law.

Yes, well, the information in this case derived from partner's play of a card, which is of cause authorised, so I do not think that answers the question.

[pran]

The 2007 code changed its attitude towards information being either authorized or extraneous. It gives a positive list of authorized information and declares everything else as extraneous. And Law 16 is universal and always applicable; it hasn't to be referenced by another law.

Yes, well, the information in this case derived from partner's play of a card, which is of cause authorised, so I do not think that answers the question.

How can you say such a thing?

 

The player had apparently forgotten the (authorized) information he had from partner's play so he asks to see the card again.

 

Now the information he has is from partner's violation of Law 66.

 

Or would you also rule that if as defender when facing a threatening end-play I can legally use the information I receive from partner exposing his card played three tricks ago because that is information (originally) received from a legal play?

[wank]

Law 66 exists to regulate when information from the play of the cards is available. THe offending side circumvented this regulation and made available/sought information to which they weren't entitled. That's UI.

[Grazy69]

Pran was correct in his 1st reply .. and it is straight forward.

 

Many posters on this forum are infamous for dis-appearing down unnecessary cul-de-sacs and this post is no different.

 

Happy New Year

[hotShot]

The player had apparently forgotten the (authorized) information he had from partner's play so he asks to see the card again.

This is speculation, he could have been just a little unsure.

 

To me Cascades suggestion: §66C => §84D => §12

 

Seems more plausible.

[pran]

The player had apparently forgotten the (authorized) information he had from partner's play so he asks to see the card again.

This is speculation, he could have been just a little unsure.

 

To me Cascades suggestion: §66C => §84D => §12

 

Seems more plausible.

From the original post:

 

All four players turn their cards down. The defender who won the trick has forgotten what his partner played so asks to see it. Contrary to Law, his partner turns his card face up. He now plays the correct card to the next trick.

 

Speculation?

[hotShot]

If it does not say: "The player stated that he had forgotten ..."

 

My experience tells me that statements like:

... The defender who won the trick has forgotten what his partner played...

are not necessarily established facts.