Taken from another thread

[jdonn]

Law 40C3a.

Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled

during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique.

There is a forums poster who, when deciding what to play from QJ at moments when he wishes to randomize, does something like look at the second hand on his watch and base his play on whether it's even or odd at that moment. Another poster argues that is illegal based on the above law as he is using an aid to his "technique". I argue that it is legal because it is an aid to "strategy" (which is not mentioned), not technique (which I view as something more like having a guide to compound squeezes on your lap as you play a hand).

 

Which of us is right? Any other thoughts?

[WellSpyder]

I seem to recall a thread discussing a hand from the Vanderbilt in which declarer, faced with a guess between finessing and playing for the drop, apparently shuffled his cards face down before picking one - is that also an "aid to technique"??

 

(Probably not a very effective aid to randomising the choice between QJ in the current example, though! I don't suppose many declarer's will follow the Principle of Restricted Choice after seeing a defender randomise his carding in this way :lol: )

[aguahombre]

Which of us is right? Any other thoughts?

You are. And for other thoughts, encrypted carding comes to mind. OOOO, pretend I didn't go there.

 

(edit) Due to below misunderstanding: using an outside factor to choose among equal cards is not "e/c". I was referring to using an outside factor for other purposes, hence "other thoughts".

[TylerE]

This is totally not encrypted carding. That said, I think this is illegal for a totally DIFFERENT reason...the UI provided to partner. Maybe illegal isn't the right word, since giving UI technically isn't, but...

[jdonn]

This is totally not encrypted carding. That said, I think this is illegal for a totally DIFFERENT reason...the UI provided to partner. Maybe illegal isn't the right word, since giving UI technically isn't, but...

Giving UI isn't illegal. And what is the UI anyway?

[blackshoe]

If a player notices that his partner is shuffling his cards, and then picking one without looking, that may indeed convey UI. However, that in itself is not illegal. Use of such UI may be illegal, but first you have to identify the I, and the inference(s) that might logically be derived from it, and then you have to show how the player could have based whatever action he decided to take on the inference(s). There's also the question whether there were LAs, and whether the opponents were damaged. So you've got a long way to go from "he shuffled his cards!!!" to "there was an infraction for which the TD will adjust the score". And even if you do that, there is no case for procedural penalties here.

[Echognome]

I wrote out my view in the other thread here:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...38525&st=45&hl=

[pran]

This is totally not encrypted carding. That said, I think this is illegal for a totally DIFFERENT reason...the UI provided to partner. Maybe illegal isn't the right word, since giving UI technically isn't, but...

Giving UI isn't illegal. And what is the UI anyway?

The UI is that his play is random rather than deterministic.

 

But there is a worse possibility: If he selects his play depending for instance on whether the time of day minute is odd or even and his partner knows the "secret" then we have an example of "concealed partnership communication" - a very serious violation of law 73B2.

[hrothgar]

Law 40C3a.

Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled

during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique.

There is a forums poster who, when deciding what to play from QJ at moments when he wishes to randomize, does something like look at the second hand on his watch and base his play on whether it's even or odd at that moment. Another poster argues that is illegal based on the above law as he is using an aid to his "technique". I argue that it is legal because it is an aid to "strategy" (which is not mentioned), not technique (which I view as something more like having a guide to compound squeezes on your lap as you play a hand).

 

Which of us is right? Any other thoughts?

I seem to recall that many bridge boards use colors to indicate the vulnerability.

 

Does this constitute an illegal aid to memory? (As a corollary, should we launch a massive campaign to swap out all the boards)

 

Alternatively, are there practical limits to this Law?

 

(I lean towards the second interpretation)

[jdonn]

This is totally not encrypted carding. That said, I think this is illegal for a totally DIFFERENT reason...the UI provided to partner. Maybe illegal isn't the right word, since giving UI technically isn't, but...

Giving UI isn't illegal. And what is the UI anyway?

The UI is that his play is random rather than deterministic.

 

But there is a worse possibility: If he selects his play depending for instance on whether the time of day minute is odd or even and his partner knows the "secret" then we have an example of "concealed partnership communication" - a very serious violation of law 73B2.

Rather than declare LOL on all the rubbish you just wrote, I will assume you failed to realize that there is a (quite obvious) presumption that partner can not see what we are doing. There is neither UI, nor "I" at all, nor any agreement (situations in which you should choose randomly between QJ plays are common bridge knowledge not particular to any partnership), nor communication of any kind. And frankly it's silly to worry about in any case. Can partner see his watch and additionally pinpoint the exact second it was looked at?

 

It doesn't even have to be looking at your watch in particular, there is a general question about whether it's legal to use a random element in your outside environment on which to base plays which you have decided to make randomly, and what is meant by "technique" in the quoted law. I am partly to blame for contributing to this diversion from the more interesting question.

[jdonn]

I seem to recall that many bridge boards use colors to indicate the vulnerability.

 

Does this constitute an illegal aid to memory? (As a corollary, should we launch a massive campaign to swap out all the boards)

 

Alternatively, are there practical limits to this Law?

 

(I lean towards the second interpretation)

Well the colors on the boards are (arguably?) information that is "permitted by the Regulating Authority", although maybe they are trying to say "permitted to be used as an aid". But in any case I agree with your interpretation.

[hrothgar]

I seem to recall that many bridge boards use colors to indicate the vulnerability.

 

Does this constitute an illegal aid to memory?  (As a corollary, should we launch a massive campaign to swap out all the boards)

 

Alternatively, are there practical limits to this Law?

 

(I lean towards the second interpretation)

Well the colors on the boards are (arguably?) information that is "permitted by the Regulating Authority", although maybe they are trying to say "permitted to be used as an aid". But in any case I agree with your interpretation.

Good point...

 

I guess that the obvious rejoinder is that you're fine if you look at the round timer, but you better not look at your watch...

[campboy]

I seem to recall that many bridge boards use colors to indicate the vulnerability.

 

Does this constitute an illegal aid to memory?

Certainly not. Law 2 says how the boards are marked; Law 7 that the board should remain on the table throughout the deal.

[hrothgar]

I seem to recall that many bridge boards use colors to indicate the vulnerability.

 

Does this constitute an illegal aid to memory?

Certainly not. Law 2 says how the boards are marked; Law 7 that the board should remain on the table throughout the deal.

I'd appreciate it if you could show me where RAs require that boards have the vulnerability marked...

[campboy]

I seem to recall that many bridge boards use colors to indicate the vulnerability.

 

Does this constitute an illegal aid to memory?

Certainly not. Law 2 says how the boards are marked; Law 7 that the board should remain on the table throughout the deal.

I'd appreciate it if you could show me where RAs require that boards have the vulnerability marked...

I meant they require it because the laws require it, though on re-reading law 2 I can see that it is not unambiguous what "designated" means. However, I think there is a presumption in Law 2 that there are conditions marked on the board.