Double Trouble

[CSGibson]

As far as the board he is playing is concerned, West did not receive unauthorised information "about the board he is playing", so has no UI as defined in 16C1. I agree, of course, regarding the board he is yet to play.

West has unauthorized information. He acted on that unauthorized information on this board, and his opponents were damaged as a result. It seems clear to me that this should be corrected, even if West was mistaken in his belief that the unauthorized information applied to this board.

[lamford]

The laws do not allow the use of unauthorised information to suggest a call or play (Law 16A3).  There is no restriction in Law 16A as to the source or relevance of the unauthorised information.  There is no penalty defined in Law 16A3, but the lead of the small club on the first board was against that law.

I think all we are disputing is whether a player received unauthorised information about this board. If a player overheard someone say "the king of clubs is singleton offside again" and the player making the remark was playing in a match with different boards, would you punish someone, hearing the remark, who successfully dropped the singleton king of clubs in the duplicate event?

 

Or, if they were the same boards, would you award an adjusted score on all boards where the declarer was missing the king of clubs, because the odds had been tilted slightly? And if the player was not scheduled to play that board - either he had already played it or it was not a board in his schedule - then there would be no infraction, because the information would not be "about a board he is playing or has yet to play." Note that it does not say "a board he thinks he is playing or has yet to play" which seems to be your interpretation.

 

It is surely integral to the operation of 16A3 that the only board on which the director takes action is the one from which the UI emanates. We get nonsense if we try to consider all boards together. Are you saying that after the first board of the evening, all calls after that are cancelled under Law 39A? No, the ending of one board starts almost every Law afresh, and infractions on one board do not have any effect, generally, on others. Exceptions might include repeated psyches or general behaviour.

[Pict]

I don't find this argument convincing at all.

 

If I ask West why he led a small club and he says it was because he overhead a comment that suggested the small club was the only winning lead, I'd say case closed: there really is no need to discover West was right in the outcome, but wrong in his choice of extraneous information.

 

If partner breaks tempo, for no good reason, and I act (successfully) on my inference from the BIT, it will not help us if partner explains he drifted into thinking about the previous board.

[bluejak]

A player sees board 23 on the floor. Having the ethics of a snake, he quickly looks at the West hand. No-one sees him.

 

When board 23 comes along he deliberately uses the information and gets a good result. Is this cheating?

 

Now the TD investigates and finds that it was an old board 23 from an earlier session, not the current one. How many people now think he has done nothing wrong?

[lamford]

If partner breaks tempo, for no good reason, and I act (successfully) on my inference from the BIT, it will not help us if partner explains he drifted into thinking about the previous board.

I agree completely. The difference is that you have UI on this board in such a case.

 

If West was not scheduled to play the board in question, or had played it but not connected the remark with that earlier board, would you still adjust, and under which Law?

[lamford]

A player sees board 23 on the floor.  Having the ethics of a snake, he quickly looks at the West hand.  No-one sees him.

 

When board 23 comes along he deliberately uses the information and gets a good result.  Is this cheating?

 

Now the TD investigates and finds that it was an old board 23 from an earlier session, not the current one.  How many people now think he has done nothing wrong?

I totally agree he merits a PP, or even to be thrown out of the event. The question at issue is do you adjust the real board 23, and under which Law?

[bluejak]

Law 12A1 comes to mind. I see the point about Law 16 not applying to a different board, but do not think that excuses anything.

[lamford]

Law 12A1 comes to mind.  I see the point about Law 16 not applying to a different board, but do not think that excuses anything.

Natural justice dictates that you are right where the player attempted to cheat, but Law12A1 requires a violation, so we first have to find a Law he violated. Surely the knowledge of the West hand from the previous session is:

 

"(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."

[axman]

The infraction lay in not calling the TD "forthwith". The fact that he was mistaken about to which board the information he had pertained does not seem to me to be relevant to the requirement to call the TD.

Not that I have worked through the issues but it is apparent to me that The Infraction is the unnamed contestant that did not keep his trap shut.

 

As for the other 'infraction' of the failure to report immediately I am presently reluctant to classify it as a heinous crime: I would be curious to know just what** the TD is to be able to accomplish from this forthwith report when he can not find out to which board the extraneous information refers or just who created the extraneous information. Anyway, it seems to me that the primary reason for insisting that a report be made immediately is for the purpose of immediately putting a stop to the future creation of 'the' extraneous information.

 

 

** suppose that after reporting the overhearer picks up a hand he believes the EI referred and then calls the TD to say 'I think this is it' Now the opponents have EI that there is something special about the hand- and what if they act on the inference and gain a profitable outcome?

[Free]

This West is an easy target at the bar. "That 3-3 ♥ fit plays better than our 6-3♠ split on board 11". While we're at it, if you know a player who uses this UBI (unauthorized bar information) at the table, is it unethical to mislead him like this?

[iviehoff]

A player sees board 23 on the floor.  Having the ethics of a snake, he quickly looks at the West hand.  No-one sees him.

 

When board 23 comes along he deliberately uses the information and gets a good result.  Is this cheating?

 

Now the TD investigates and finds that it was an old board 23 from an earlier session, not the current one.  How many people now think he has done nothing wrong?

From the perspective of the laws of bridge, he has done nothing wrong. He tried to do something wrong, but failed. Morally it stinks, but that's another matter. Probably the rules of the club allow you to throw him out of the club. But I don't think the laws of bridge have been broken.

 

In the criminal law, attempting to commit an offence is typically an offence in itself, but usually defined as such, eg, attempted murder. I rather suspect that in civil law, attempted but unsuccessful torts are not actionable because there is no damage attributable. In bridge, there is in general no category for attempted offences. So doubt there can even be a PP for this.

 

To commit a UI offence, the informatoin has to demonstrably suggest something. Information from the wrong hand does not demonstrably suggest anything. Of course you may be unaware that the information is from the wrong hand, but that doesn't alter the fact it is from the wrong hand. You thought you had some information, but in reality you didn't. Similarly, you may believe in astrology, and believe some horoscope that appears to give you an insight into the cards. If by chance acting on the horoscope information gives you good scores today, well that's just by chance. You thought you had information, but in reality, you didn't.

[bluejak]

As for the other 'infraction' of the failure to report immediately I am presently reluctant to classify it as a heinous crime:  I would be curious to know just what** the TD is to be able to accomplish from this forthwith report when he can not find out to which board the extraneous information refers or just who created the extraneous information.  Anyway, it seems to me that the primary reason for insisting that a report be made immediately is for the purpose of immediately putting a stop to the future creation of 'the' extraneous information.

No end of trouble is caused, again and again, from people who do not report UI to the TD. They tend to judge themselves whether it makes a difference, and keep quiet if they think it did not - a self-serving decision.

 

Saying a fairly common infraction that causes a lot of trouble is not a heinous crime is not right in my view.

[CSGibson]

Law 12A1 comes to mind.  I see the point about Law 16 not applying to a different board, but do not think that excuses anything.

Natural justice dictates that you are right where the player attempted to cheat, but Law12A1 requires a violation, so we first have to find a Law he violated. Surely the knowledge of the West hand from the previous session is:

 

"(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."

yeah, just like an overheard remark is information he had before he took his hand from the board. Doesn't mean that we can't adjust.

 

This is a very simple situation. West was in the wrong, and North-South were damaged. Instead of looking at all of the laws trying to figure out what applies and doesn't apply to this situation, we should be looking at what would restore equity, and then look through the laws to find something that allows us to do so. That is the overriding principle behind having law in the first place - justice.

[lamford]

Instead of looking at all of the laws trying to figure out what applies and doesn't apply to this situation, we should be looking at what would restore equity, and then look through the laws to find something that allows us to do so. That is the overriding principle behind having law in the first place - justice.

The laws do provide the power to restore equity where there is no remedy for an infraction, but first there has to be an infraction, and not a moral one, but a breach of one of the Laws of Bridge.

 

I am with iviehoff. West did not have any UI. He just thought he did. The underlead of the AKQJ of clubs was extremely unlikely to be successful. North-South were damaged not because of West's attempt to cheat but by an unlucky layout. One thing it is not is a simple case. If it were it would have been moved to simple rulings.

[RMB1]

He did have UI: specifically on a board, probably one in play in this room in this session, an underlead of ♣AKQJx was the only lead to defeat the contract. He is not allowed to use that information on any hand, unless or until the TD has ruled under Law 16C.

[CSGibson]

Instead of looking at all of the laws trying to figure out what applies and doesn't apply to this situation, we should be looking at what would restore equity, and then look through the laws to find something that allows us to do so.  That is the overriding principle behind having law in the first place - justice.

The laws do provide the power to restore equity where there is no remedy for an infraction, but first there has to be an infraction, and not a moral one, but a breach of one of the Laws of Bridge.

 

I am with iviehoff. West did not have any UI. He just thought he did. The underlead of the AKQJ of clubs was extremely unlikely to be successful. North-South were damaged not because of West's attempt to cheat but by an unlucky layout. One thing it is not is a simple case. If it were it would have been moved to simple rulings.

There is an infraction. RMB1 stated the UI situation in a very clear manner, and furthermore, W's failure to call the director when he thought he had received UI from an outside source that applied to his hand was another infraction.

 

I agree it isn't a simple case (IE, the rule book does not speak to this type of activity specifically). It is a simple situation - W had UI, acted on UI, and benefitted from his action - and in my opinion, the fact that W's UI did not stem from conversation on this board does not lessen his obligations 1.) not to act on the UI and 2.) to call the director. The fact that he did act, and that N-S were damaged, means that there has to be an adjustment.

[aguahombre]

I agree it isn't a simple case ............... The fact that he did (commit an infraction or two) and that N-S were damaged, means that there has to be an adjustment.

Indeed. If there is no law allowing an adjustment, but only PP's in this case, we have a loophole. Perhaps we just have to live with it and chalk up to the fickle finger of fate, but it feels wrong.

[lamford]

He did have UI: specifically on a board, probably one in play in this room in this session, an underlead of ♣AKQJx was the only lead to defeat the contract.

But it was not this one; it was just a coincidence that the underlead also worked here.

 

How would you rule if the board on which he received UI was

a ) one he had already played

b ) one he was never due to play because of the movement?

 

And if you would adjust, under which Law?

[lamford]

Indeed. If there is no law allowing an adjustment, but only PP's in this case, we have a loophole. Perhaps we just have to live with it and chalk up to the fickle finger of fate, but it feels wrong.

I feel as unhappy as you when someone "gets away with something" because of a fault in the Law which is then remedied. But I don't think that justifies bending the Law to punish them.

[aguahombre]

Indeed.  If there is no law allowing an adjustment, but only PP's in this case, we have a loophole.  Perhaps we just have to live with it and chalk up to the fickle finger of fate, but it feels wrong.

I feel as unhappy as you when someone "gets away with something" because of a fault in the Law which is then remedied. But I don't think that justifies bending the Law to punish them.

hence the part about living with it, etc. But it is not "getting away with it" that makes me unhappy with the situation; There will be a penalty on them. It is the innocent side keeping the result that I lament.

[RMB1]

He did have UI: specifically on a board, probably one in play in this room in this session, an underlead of ♣AKQJx was the only lead to defeat the contract.

But it was not this one; it was just a coincidence that the underlead also worked here.

 

How would you rule if the board on which he received UI was

a ) one he had already played

b ) one he was never due to play because of the movement?

 

And if you would adjust, under which Law?

I am not sure I understand the phrase "the board on which he received UI"? I presume this means the board concerning which he received UI, the board which the UI is related to.

 

If the board which the UI related to was one he had already played or one he was never due to play but he tried to apply the UI to another board that he was playing and it was sucessful then I would adjust. Law 12A3 is unequivocal.

 

If two East's had played the two boards and both made the same remark. West only hears one of the remarks and plays one of the two boards and makes the successful play. Do we adjust if West said he overheard one East but not if he overheard the other East. As far as I can see the information West received was the same.

[lamford]

If the board which the UI related to was one he had already played or one he was never due to play but he tried to apply the UI to another board that he was playing and it was sucessful then I would adjust. Law 12A3 is unequivocal.

Which irregularity has been incorrectly rectified?

[lamford]

I am not sure I understand the phrase "the board on which he received UI"?  I presume this means the board concerning which he received UI, the board which the UI is related to.

I think it is correct to use the phrase EI, rather than UI, as someone else has done. And yes, I am referrring to the board from which EI emanated.

 

I think you are quite wrong to adjust if the board has already been played or will not be played. He did not have any obligation to contact the director in that case, as Law 16C1 is quite specific:

 

"information about a board he is playing or has yet to play." Wording that expressly indicates that information he receives about any other board is not EI.

 

The problem is that there is no EI, so there is no violation. I don't think there any grounds whatsoever for your adjustment under the Laws.

[RMB1]

If the board which the UI related to was one he had already played or one he was never due to play but he tried to apply the UI to another board that he was playing and it was sucessful then I would adjust.  Law 12A3 is unequivocal.

Which irregularity has been incorrectly rectified?

Sorry "Law 16A3"

[RMB1]

I think it is correct to use the phrase EI, rather than UI, as someone else has done. And yes, I am referrring to the board from which EI emanated.

 

You used UI in the topic description.

I do not think Law 16 makes a distinction between UI and EI.