Double Trouble

[lamford]

You used UI in the topic description. 

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

I agree that it does not matter if it is called EI or UI; perhaps I should not have bothered to suggest the former was better. 16C1 has EI in the heading and UI in the text.

 

I also agree that it does not matter for Law 16 purposes whether it is UI or EI. Information does indeed not have to be accurate. But for Law 16 to apply it has to be "about a board he is playing or is about to play". You do not seem to be addressing this point.

 

I agree that Law 16A3 prevents him using any other information. However, he is not doing so. If he started the board with the information that "the king of clubs is always singleton offside" he would be entitled to use it under 16A1d. It does not matter that the information is wrong. It is not information about a board he is playing or is about to play. Similarly if he started the board with the information that on a board that he will not play or has played, regardless of whether he knew it was a board that he will not play or has played, an underlead of AKQJ clubs worked, he is quite entitled to try that on this board. Law 16C1 has the negative implication that information about a board he has already played or will not play is authorised and the Laws do not therefore preclude the use of this information.

[bluejak]

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.

Sorry, but this is just not acceptable. He had no reason to know whether he was playing the board or not, but he heard something that quite likely would be to the detriment of his opponents. Failure to tell the TD forthwith is an infraction, and I really do not care which Law you claim it comes under or does not come under.

 

As someone else pointed out, murder is a violation, and attempted murder is a violation. Similarly, cheating at bridge is a violation: attempting to cheat at bridge is a violation even if you fail.

[jdonn]

Sorry, but this is just not acceptable. He had no reason to know whether he was playing the board or not, but he heard something that quite likely would be to the detriment of his opponents. Failure to tell the TD forthwith is an infraction, and I really do not care which Law you claim it comes under or does not come under.

 

As someone else pointed out, murder is a violation, and attempted murder is a violation. Similarly, cheating at bridge is a violation: attempting to cheat at bridge is a violation even if you fail.

Finally common sense! Lol why would we reward him for being bad at cheating?

[lamford]

Failure to tell the TD forthwith is an infraction, and I really do not care which Law you claim it comes under or does not come under.

The Laws on the whole are so badly worded that I am quite happy with this approach. But it is better to get the Laws right. The correction is to change the wording to "is playing, has yet to play, or about any board that he does not know he has played." As they currently stand, there is a loophole, and that is undesirable.

 

He had no reason to know whether he was playing the board or not

What relevance is this? The law says "is playing or has yet to play". Where does knowing come into it?

[lamford]

Similarly, cheating at bridge is a violation: attempting to cheat at bridge is a violation even if you fail.

Here I totally agree, and any punishment for West you propose is acceptable. I am sure that one of the etiquette Laws can be used, perhaps 74A2. But adjusting the score on the board is different.

[bluejak]

Well, it was you [as I remember] who seemed to think it mattered. I don't. If you hear something about a board, you report it to the TD. The fact that you do not know whether it is a board you are yet to play or not is an irrelevancy.

 

As to what the Laws should say, that is not a matter for this forum. We like practical solutions here. And allowing someone to get away with attempted cheating is not a practical solution.

[lamford]

Well, it was you [as I remember] who seemed to think it mattered.  I don't.  If you hear something about a board, you report it to the TD.  The fact that you do not know whether it is a board you are yet to play or not is an irrelevancy.

 

As to what the Laws should say, that is not a matter for this forum.  We like practical solutions here.  And allowing someone to get away with attempted cheating is not a practical solution.

 

This particular forum is to understand changes that have occurred in both Laws and Regulations. Also to suggest changes that might be made. While we cannot guarantee anyone will listen to our ideas, at least if we discuss them thoroughly and make them sensible and consistent authorities might be more willing to listen.

The Alcatraz Coup was legal when first tried, but a later law change made it illegal.

[lamford]

If you hear something about a board, you report it to the TD. The fact that you do not know whether it is a board you are yet to play or not is an irrelevancy.

Not so; at the tea-break last night, the person to whom I was passing the boards said, "You were lucky to make that slam off two aces." This was a true statement, and I suppose it was information, but was not about a board that I was yet to play or was playing, so I guessed not to tell the TD forthwith. No doubt you would have done so.

[blackshoe]

sheesh.

 

This forum (Law and Rulings) is for discussing practical table rulings under the existing laws and regulations. The "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum is for discussing, among other things, shortcomings in the existing laws and regulations. Please do not try to justify discussing the latter here in Laws and Rulings.

 

If the powers that be decide to change the law, then the rulings we suggest in Laws and Rulings will no doubt change as well. Until that happens, if in some poster's opinion the law is an ass, I have no problem with him saying so — but in this forum that should be an end to it. If further discussion is desired, please take it to the "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum.

 

When you hear something about a board, and you don't know what board it is, it may well be one you have yet to play. You should call the TD and let him sort it out. If you are certain you've already played the board, of course there's no need to call the TD. Can we please try to avoid getting bogged down in silliness?

[lamford]

sheesh.

 

This forum (Law and Rulings) is for discussing practical table rulings under the existing laws and regulations. The "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum is for discussing, among other things, shortcomings in the existing laws and regulations. Please do not try to justify discussing the latter here in Laws and Rulings.

 

If the powers that be decide to change the law, then the rulings we suggest in Laws and Rulings will no doubt change as well. Until that happens, if in some poster's opinion the law is an ass, I have no problem with him saying so — but in this forum that should be an end to it. If further discussion is desired, please take it to the "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum.

When I started the thread, it appeared to me that it belonged in Laws and Rulings, and not Changing Laws and Regulations. It seems impractical to have a split thread, and I presume only the moderators can reclassify an entire thread. If one aspect of a thread is criticism of the wording of a Law, I do not see why that is a problem.

 

I agree that the practical approach when you hear anything, that may be about a board that you have still to play, or may be about a board that you have played or will not play, or may not even be in your event, is to tell the TD. But, as you say, this forum concerns itself with what the Law says, and it is not that.

 

I am indeed playing Devil's Advocate. I no more condone West's actions than you or others. I would want the TD to find any means of punishing him within the Laws that he can. It is not silliness to point out that I find it hard to find a Law which he infracted, and RMB1's admirable attempts to do so are unconvincing.

 

Oswald Jacoby, in 1947, campaigned to change the revoke law because of the Alcatraz Coup, and I believe this was the origin of 16D2 (and Law 23 to cover similar skullduggery), but I do not have old law copies to substantiate that. Loopholes in the laws are normally plugged. Perhaps the director's powers should be widened, so that 12A1 does not require a violation but any action that "brings the game into disrepute or is against the spirit of the game". And if you think I should start a thread in Changing Laws and Regulations, rather than add that here, then I am happy to do so. And if you prefer not to hear any more on the subject, that is fine too - you are one of the moderators.

[iviehoff]

As someone else pointed out, murder is a violation, and attempted murder is a violation. Similarly, cheating at bridge is a violation: attempting to cheat at bridge is a violation even if you fail.

Actually your second sentence contradicts what I said.

 

Under what law or laws of bridge is attempting to cheat and failing to do so an offence?

[blackshoe]

There are a lot of places where the practical approach taken by those who have to deal with situations does not follow the literal words of the laws. It is nonetheless the approach taken, and if the law, or the implementation of the law, is not perfect, well, that's life.

 

I don't want to stifle discussion — if you want to start a new thread in "changing laws", feel free. I may participate in that thread, I may not. Nothing to do with moderating, only with how interested I am in the topic of the thread (as with any thread, and any reader/poster here).

 

We can split threads, but it gets complicated when the posts which discuss how the law is screwed up get interlaced with the discussion of what the practical ruling should be. If we catch a digression early enough, that's one thing, but if it gets beyond that, it becomes a mess. It doesn't help that it's pretty much the nature of discussions on the internet that they digress, come back on point, digress again, and so on. Most of the time we just live with short digressions, and sometimes that turns out to have been a mistake, which is how I feel about it here, where the digression seems to have a life of its own. It would help if posters used a little forethought, and we got "I think the law here is FUBAR, I'll go start a thread in "changing laws..." but I realize that's a lot to ask. :angry:

 

In the OP, the scenario presented was that a player heard something about a board he was yet to play, deliberately decided not to call the TD, used the information he got, and his opponents were damaged. It does not matter that he intended to call the TD after the fact and accept an adjusted score. It does not matter that the board he thought the information was about was not the board which led to the comment (and btw, UI does not "emanate" from boards in these cases, it emanates from players). He has done what a cheat would do, and while we do not say he is a cheat, we certainly ought to rule that he has done something he should not.

[lamford]

He has done what a cheat would do, and while we do not say he is a cheat, we certainly ought to rule that he has done something he should not.

I agree that he has done what a cheat would do, but we must still rule in accordance with the Laws. As iviehofff asks,

 

"Under what law or laws of bridge is attempting to cheat and failing to do so an offence?" And I don't think "common sense" is an adequate answer.

[dburn]

The question of whether or not a player commits an infraction is invariably vexed. To give another example:

 

A player opens 1NT with a poor to average 15 count; his partner raises slowly to 2NT and he bids 3NT. This is an execrable contract, because his partner was wondering whether to pass 1NT with his eight count, not whether to bid 3NT. But three finesses and a couple of 3-3 breaks later, nine tricks are made.

 

Now, has this player committed the infraction of using UI? Obviously not, because his partner's tempo gave him no information at all about his partner's hand - if it had done, he would never have bid game. Where there is no information, there can be no unauthorised information; yet I suppose there is no Director or Committee in the world who would not adjust this result to 1NT making three.

 

Various attempts to resolve this difficulty have produced nothing that makes any sense at all; appeals to such principles as "rub of the green" on the one hand and "natural justice" on the other are equally foolish. Pity the poor fellow with a sixteen count - if he passes and his partner was thinking about raising to 3NT which fails, he may very well have his score adjusted to 3NT down one, such is the desire to punish by score adjustment felonies and misdemeanours that ought to be punished by disciplinary penalty, and to aver that a man who has obtained a good result in an irregular fashion must be guilty of something, even though no one actually knows what.

[jdonn]

And I don't think "common sense" is an adequate answer.

Common sense should always be an adequate answer.

[dburn]

And I don't think "common sense" is an adequate answer.

Common sense should always be an adequate answer.

"Common sense" is one of those well-known oxymorons, like "military intelligence". Particularly at bridge, what is sensible is not common, and what is common is not sensible.

[Pict]

The question of whether or not a player commits an infraction is invariably vexed. To give another example:

 

A player opens 1NT with a poor to average 15 count; his partner raises slowly to 2NT and he bids 3NT. This is an execrable contract, because his partner was wondering whether to pass 1NT with his eight count, not whether to bid 3NT. But three finesses and a couple of 3-3 breaks later, nine tricks are made.

 

Now, has this player committed the infraction of using UI? Obviously not, because his partner's tempo gave him no information at all about his partner's hand - if it had done, he would never have bid game. Where there is no information, there can be no unauthorised information; yet I suppose there is no Director or Committee in the world who would not adjust this result to 1NT making three.

 

Various attempts to resolve this difficulty have produced nothing that makes any sense at all; appeals to such principles as "rub of the green" on the one hand and "natural justice" on the other are equally foolish. Pity the poor fellow with a sixteen count - if he passes and his partner was thinking about raising to 3NT which fails, he may very well have his score adjusted to 3NT down one, such is the desire to punish by score adjustment felonies and misdemeanours that ought to be punished by disciplinary penalty, and to aver that a man who has obtained a good result in an irregular fashion must be guilty of something, even though no one actually knows what.

Well expressed.

 

Lamford points out a poor wording in the extraneous information portion of L16.

 

Noone (I think other than me attempted to relate it to the rest of L16 about partner).

 

I still wonder how (as dburn sort of intimates) you can apply the notion of UI(U-information) to something that contains no real world information at all.

 

Seems like we play a gambling card game, but with a police force empowered to apply the ethics of child-rearing.

 

Sorry Blackshoe, I've no problem with TD judgments, just the constant ground shifting in argument.

[jdonn]

And I don't think "common sense" is an adequate answer.

Common sense should always be an adequate answer.

"Common sense" is one of those well-known oxymorons, like "military intelligence". Particularly at bridge, what is sensible is not common, and what is common is not sensible.

I generally agree. But does anyone disagree with the 'common sense' that if someone tries to cheat but fails they should still be punished for it?

[lamford]

But does anyone disagree with the 'common sense' that if someone tries to cheat but fails they should still be punished for it?

I agree with should. But not if there is no law that is actually broken.

[jdonn]

But does anyone disagree with the 'common sense' that if someone tries to cheat but fails they should still be punished for it?

I agree with should. But not if there is no law that is actually broken.

I do not agree, which brings us full circle. I have long been on record that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law. I am happy to ignore loopholes that are clearly unintended even if allowing that may have other consequences. In other words, common sense always wins over pedantry.

[JLOGIC]

West needs medication and a good therapist in order for society to not be at risk.

I stopped reading here, personally I thought west was hilarious even though he probably has to be penalized or something now.

 

But that just goes to show your comment was spot on!

[JLOGIC]

We only have his word that he was going to call the TD - there was time for someone to ask why he underlead AKQJx.

What? West did not have to volunteer the info that he had overheard something, if he was planning on cheating I doubt the question "why did you underlead your club" frightened him so much that he fessed up. Even though west was improper it's pretty clear to me that he wasn't trying to cheat anyone and was just having a little fun intending for the board to be thrown out anyways.

[karlson]

Agree with jallerton.

[blackshoe]

Sorry Blackshoe, I've no problem with TD judgments, just the constant ground shifting in argument.

Where, pray tell, have I been guilty of "constant ground shifting"?

[dan_ehh]

Cheating and attempted cheating are the Bridge world's equivalents of criminal offenses. They should be punishable regardless of their results, or lack thereof.

Adjustment of a score is the equivalent of paying damages to rectify a tort. This requires the occurrence a tort, damages, and a causal link between the two.

 

 

West is guilty of attempted cheating and should be penalized. If you can't find any other suitable law, then use 72A and 72B1 in conjunction with 91A.

I do not buy his explanation simply because we will never know whether he was going to volunteer this information on his own without being asked about the strange lead, or whether he just hoped no one would notice the strange play and he might get away with it. This rationale should overrule any other reason to forgo the penalty, because if we skip the penalty then players will do this all the time, and some of them will undoubtedly get away with it.

 

 

The score should stand, however. This is because there is no causal link between the

UI (or EI) and the result. The fact that it is the wrong board breaks the causal link.

The real reason NS got a bad result is that EW got lucky that east held the club ten in this board too, and didn't try to cash a heart trick before playing back the trump. This has nothing to do with the UI, it could have just as well happened if west led a top club. The crucial part is the trump switch, not the opening lead.

 

 

Here is an equivalent from the legal world:

I'm an assassin. I poison someone, he dies, and I get caught.

After the police investigation is over and the lab report is done, it turns out that not only I'm poor at avoiding getting caught, I'm also poor at chemistry, because the "poison" I gave the victim turns out to have been apple juice.

The victim is still dead, however. The post mortem suggests this is due to natural causes, a heart attack in his sleep.

I am still guilty of attempted murder and will go to prison for it, but the family cannot sue me for damages because I did not cause the victim's death.