Double Trouble

[lamford]

I am still guilty of attempted murder

Correct, because there is a crime of attempted murder. As pointed out, there appears to be no crime of attempted cheating under the Laws. There should be, it is agreed, and extending the TD powers under 12A1 could be the way. (72B1 is useless because he has not violated any law and 12A1 requires a violation as well.)

[lamford]

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.

No, the real reason that NS got a bad result was that East was wearing his spectacles and spotted the heart void in dummy. And how do you propose to beat it after a top club lead?

[dan_ehh]

I am still guilty of attempted murder

Correct, because there is a crime of attempted murder. As pointed out, there appears to be no crime of attempted cheating under the Laws. There should be, it is agreed, and extending the TD powers under 12A1 could be the way. (72B1 is useless because he has not violated any law and 12A1 requires a violation as well.)

This is not true.

Basic criminal law says that you can be charged at attempting to commit any crime. It's called a "derived crime" (in hebrew anyway, not sure what is the English term). Same as soliciting to commit a crime is also a crime.

The reason there is a specific crime titled "attempted murder" is so that the penalty for this crime can be altered. You can verify this by researching criminal law a bit.

Anyway, this is irrelevant for the discussion. Sorry for going off topic.

 

I think 72A and 72B1 are sufficient because he tried to intentionally infringe the law, but if you want, you can use 74A2. I am certain that making the opponents sweat unnecessarily in a hand which you intend to cancel later by calling the TD and explaining the UI issue, counts as an action that might cause annoyance to another player. I'd certainly be annoyed at such a comment and would immediately call the director, demanding that action be taken.

 

 

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.

No, the real reason that NS got a bad result was that East was wearing his spectacles and spotted the heart void in dummy. And how do you propose to beat it after a top club lead?

 

I had not paid enough attention to which hand was dummy. My mistake.

Also didn't notice the fact that dummy has two entries if trumps are played from the other side.

And yet, the bottom line is still the same - EW got lucky with the layout of the hand. It's not against the rules to get lucky.

[nige1]

IMO, Paul is right: Bridge law should be changed (clarified?) to make it illegal to try to break the rules.

[pran]

IMO, Paul is right: Bridge law should be changed (clarified?) to make it illegal to try to break the rules.

It is, and should never be illegal to accidentally violating the rules, but such violation is of course subject to rectifications.

 

Law 72B says all that needs to be said about intentionally violating the rules.

 

Do we need any law about intentionally attempting to violate the rules? I think not.

 

For one thing such a law must establish clear criteria for how to prove intent, and as very few (if any) directors can qualify as mind readers I believe that such a law will be impossible to enforce.

 

And we do already have Law 74A2.

[lamford]

Law 72B says all that needs to be said about intentionally violating the rules.

Posters on this thread keep repeating irrelevancies. In our example there was no violation of the Laws, so 72B is absolutely useless. First you have to find an infraction and a Law that it infracts. 74A2 was a reasonable shot by someone. Personally, it would increase my enjoyment of the game if this incident occurred at my table.

[nige1]

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.

IMO: The director does not seem to be twisting the law when he adjusts the score from 3N= to 1N+2. It does not matter what is the real reason for the unauthorised information. For example, the player who bid a slow 2N may be dozing rather than thinking. All that matters is whether the unauthorised information demonstrably suggests the successful action over a less successful logical alternative. Arguably, hesitant calls are more often underbids rather than overbids.

 

Inevitably, innocents will sometimes be ruled against when judgement hinges on "Preponderance of evidence" or "Balance of probability". But "Beyond reasonable doubt" would be an unworkable criterion for the rules of Bridge.

 

Initially, I thought DBurn's example unhelpful. On reflection, I'm unsure. In Paul's example, may the director argue that the alleged offender really is in receipt of unauthorised information? The information may be objectively irrelevant. In the player's a head, however, is there (incorrect) information that is both relevant and unauthorised? And do his actions provide practical evidence of such information and its illegal use?

[pran]

Law 72B says all that needs to be said about intentionally violating the rules.

Posters on this thread keep repeating irrelevancies. In our example there was no violation of the Laws, so 72B is absolutely useless. First you have to find an infraction and a Law that it infracts. 74A2 was a reasonable shot by someone. Personally, it would increase my enjoyment of the game if this incident occurred at my table.

Please read before you comment:

 

The question is fourfold:

 

Intentionally committing a violation of law,

Accidentally committing a violation of law,

Intentionally attempting a violation of law,

Accidentally attempting a violation of law.

 

I have briefly discussed all four alternatives, you commented my entry related to just one of them with the (obvious) remark that this entry is irrelevant for the other three alternatives.

 

However the way this thread has developed we must consider all four variants.

[lamford]

The question is fourfold:

 

Intentionally committing a violation of law,

Accidentally committing a violation of law,

Intentionally attempting a violation of law,

Accidentally attempting a violation of law.

 

I have briefly discussed all four alternatives, you commented my entry related to just one of them with the (obvious) remark that this entry is irrelevant for the other three alternatives.

 

However the way this thread has developed we must consider all four variants.

Apologies for misunderstanding you. I agree that 72B is fine for coping with the first of these, and is inappropriate for the second and fourth. The Laws are very poor at coping with the third type, which should be made an infraction by a widening of powers of the TD. I agree it will be sometimes difficult to establish intent.

[dburn]

It does not matter what is the real reason for the unauthorised information.

No, but it matters whether there is actually any "information" at all.

 

In the present case, it is being argued that a man with information regarding board x cannot be held in breach of Law if he applies the information regarding board x to board not-x, however successfully he does so.

 

In the general case, it may be argued that a player who would not take action x if he knew his partner's hand cannot be held to have taken action x because of information about his partner's hand, thus has not breached any Law.

 

The trouble is that "information" is an ambiguous term. Originally, "information" was that which "informed" (that is: shaped - "formed" - or influenced) the way in which people behaved; it did not matter whether the "information" actually corresponded with reality. Thus, a man who bids 3NT on a minimum after 1NT-slow 2NT is "informed" by his partner's tempo, whether or not his partner's tempo is itself "informed" by anything in his partner's hand. In that sense, one may rule against the player under Law 16 if 3NT happens to make - as indeed one frequently does so rule.

 

But that definition is nowadays close to obsolete. In the normal run of events, one distinguishes among "data" on the one hand and "information" on the other by regarding the former as potentially false or meaningless, and the latter as true (or at any rate, corresponding with some putative reality held for convenience to be true).

 

Specifically in bridge, one speaks of "misinformation" as distinct from "information" in saying that if a player is told something that is not true about an opposing partnership's agreements, that player is entitled to redress if he has done something deleterious as a result; while if he is told the truth about the agreements (though not necessarily about the cards the opponents hold), he is not.

 

Thus, in times gone by "information" was merely that upon which someone acted - it did not matter at all whether the basis of the action was factual. Nowadays, one regards "information" as to some extent a measurable quantity conforming to a factual state of affairs - the field of information theory, and the terms "misinformation" and "disinformation" attest to this. The Laws of bridge use the term indiscriminately in both senses, to the detriment of clarity but (perhaps, though not always) to the benefit of justice.

 

The confusion between the archaic and the contemporary senses of the term "information" actually works fairly well for the practical purposes of administering the game of bridge (though I should stress that this is a fluke; different formulations of the Laws would work better in terms of making it clear to players what they should and should not do). It works better still when combined with such splendid but semantically useless phrases as "could demonstrably suggest", because anyone with half a brain can demonstrate that almost anything could or could not suggest almost anything else; so that the bridge world can for some decades yet pursue the Kaplan Model: "if someone has done something undesirable, there almost certainly exists an interpretation of Law under which he should not have done it".

 

In the present case, the guy who underled his solid clubs on board x even though he knew only that it was the right defence on some board either x or not-x, and it happened to be the right defence on both boards x and not-x, was "informed" in the archaic sense to underlead his solid clubs on some board or other, and should be ruled against just as if he had been "informed" in the contemporary sense that board x was the board on which it was right.

 

In the general case, the man who bid 3NT on a minimum should similarly be ruled against, for if you hesitate, you get shot. You may not think that this is a particularly equitable state of affairs, but I cannot help that. It is the Law.

[lamford]

Thus, in times gone by "information" was merely that upon which someone acted - it did not matter at all whether the basis of the action was factual.

I can quite easily accept your interpretation of the word "information" and decide that the opening leader does have "unauthorised information". However, the phrase "about a board he is playing or has yet to play" seems very specific and whatever information he had did not fall into that category. If you overheard someone say "you should sacrifice, non vulnerable" and you thought a board being passed to you was that one, but it was actually one you had already played, would you penalise someone who successfully ventured a non-vulnerable sacrifice?

 

I once had a parking ticket near Arsenal football ground in a bay marked "Street trader pitch: no parking on match days", wording that the Parking and Traffic Appeal Service agreed permitted parking on all non-match days, and they cancelled the ticket. The sign was later changed to reflect the intended meaning, as should the Laws of Bridge be so amended in very many cases.

[RMB1]

Thus, in times gone by "information" was merely that upon which someone acted - it did not matter at all whether the basis of the action was factual.

I can quite easily accept your interpretation of the word "information" and decide that the opening leader does have "unauthorised information". However, the phrase "about a board he is playing or has yet to play" seems very specific and whatever information he had did not fall into that category.

The phrase "about a board he is playing or has yet to play" applies to notifying the TD in Law 16C. The phrase does not occur in Law 16A which applies to all UI. Law 16A3 has been broken and Law 16A4 allows the TD to adjust.

 

If you overheard someone say "you should sacrifice, non vulnerable" and you thought a board being passed to you was that one, but it was actually one you had already played, would you penalise someone who successfully ventured a non-vulnerable sacrifice?

If I overheard someone say "you should sacrifice, non vulnerable" and I thought a board being passed to me was that one, I would notify the TD as per Law 16C. He may confirm that what I had overheard related to a board I had already played and would allow play to continue.

[lamford]

Law 16A3 has been broken and Law 16A4 allows the TD to adjust.

We are going round in circles. Let us say that he would never play the board from which he received the potential UI (or EI). Which Law prevents him using that information? He is allowed to base any call or play on information that he possessed at the start of the deal and which the Laws do not preclude him using.

 

Let us say that he had gone for 1100 on three occasions today on which he had opened a weak NT and he decides to pass his moth-eaten 12 count on this occasion. This is clearly using information about a board he has already played, and is authorised.

 

Let us say that in a game on Bridge Base which he was watching an expert went for 1100 by opening a 12 count, and he decided not to do so for that reason. That is clearly using information about a board he is not "yet to play" and is authorised.

 

Both are permitted. Therefore 16A1d allows him to use information about a board he has played or is not yet to play. If he is yet to play the board in question, then I can accept your view.

[lamford]

If I overheard someone say "you should sacrifice, non vulnerable" and I thought a board being passed to me was that one, I would notify the TD as per Law 16C.

I would too, as would all ethical players. But if I did not, and it transpired that I had played the board, then I would not have committed an infraction of Law 16C, which does not say "think he is playing" or "think he is yet to play". Your suggestion that information about a board that he has played or is never due to play is also UI is not logical.

[RMB1]

Law 16A3 has been broken and Law 16A4 allows the TD to adjust.

We are going round in circles. Let us say that he would never play the board on which he received the UI (or EI). Which Law prevents him using that information? He is allowed to base any call or play on information that he possessed at the start of the deal and which the Laws do not preclude him using.

Original content deleted. I have decided I do not want to continue the argument. Since lamford has quoted it below, I will keep the final question.

 

Do you think that Law 16A3 does not apply to irrelevant information that is not authorised?

Edited September 20, 2010 by RMB1

[lamford]

Do you think that Law 16A3 does not apply to irrelevant information that is not authorised?

16A3 applies to all information not covered in 16A1 or 16A2. It says "other".

 

16A2d allows the player to use information which the Laws do not preclude him using. 16C1 indicates what happens when a player receives unauthorised information about a board he is playing or has yet to play. By implication, nothing happens when he receives any information about a board he has played or is not due to play for whatever reason and the Laws do not preclude him using this information. Regardless of whether he has informed the TD in advance, as he was not obliged to.

 

There are two issues; whether you adjust on the board - BLML by a big majority thought you do not - and whether you find some other sanctions such as those provided under Law 91 - BLML thought that one should refer him to the C&E committee or similar. I think one should, but it is a dangerous area if the chap has not broken any Laws. Regardless of whether he intended to.

[pran]

Law 16A3 has been broken and Law 16A4 allows the TD to adjust.

We are going round in circles. Let us say that he would never play the board on which he received the UI (or EI). Which Law prevents him using that information? He is allowed to base any call or play on information that he possessed at the start of the deal and which the Laws do not preclude him using.

Original content deleted. I have decided I do not want to continue the argument. Since lamford has quoted it below, I will keep the final question.

 

Do you think that Law 16A3 does not apply to irrelevant information that is not authorised?

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.

 

This explicitly defines (all) the information that is authorized for a player. Whether or not such information is relevant for any board played or to be played is completely irrelevant.

 

Law 16A3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).

 

This makes it absolutely clear that any information not covered by the definition above is extraneous and that no player may base his call or play on such information.

[pran]

16A2d allows the player to use information which the Laws do not preclude him using.

But only if he possessed that information before he took his hand from the board!

[lamford]

16A2d allows the player to use information which the Laws do not preclude him using.

But only if he possessed that information before he took his hand from the board!

If he overheard it while looking at his hand, he would know that it was not this board, surely, so he must have possessed the information before he took his hand from the board. If it is information about a board that he has played or is not due to play, then it is authorised. You seem to be defeating your own point by indicating that whether or not the information is relevant for any board is irrelevant.

[blackshoe]

If he overheard it while looking at his hand, he would know that it was not this board…

How would he know that?

[lamford]

If he overheard it while looking at his hand, he would know that it was not this board…

How would he know that?

I should say, "assuming there were not two copies of the board in play." If that were the case, and he obtained the UI from the same board, he would indeed have UI about "the board he is playing".

[peachy]

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.

If there is no law that adequately covers a rare situation such as *attempted to cheat* the TD has the explicit power to penalize or rectify as he sees fit. I would see it totally fit to use that clause here.

[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.

If there is no law that adequately covers a rare situation such as *attempted to cheat* the TD has the explicit power to penalize or rectify as he sees fit. I would see it totally fit to use that clause here.

Indeed. One possible avenue for the TD is Law 91B:

 

"The Director is empowered to disqualify a contestant for cause". These last two words are capable of several interpretations, however, and some might argue that the person disqualified should have breached one of Laws 1-90 first.

 

91A begins "In performing his duty to maintain order and discipline, the director is empowered to assess disciplinary penalties <snip>", but the person in question did not seem to be a threat to that. As I think Samuel Johnson said "Most vices can be committed very genteely; a man may debauch his friend's wife genteely; he may cheat at cards genteely."

[kevperk]

My problem with not adjusting the score is think of this happening at two different tables. Player one informs the director, who either finds out that the remark doesn't refer to the hand and informs player one, or reseats the players so that player one isn't in a position to find the successful underlead. Player two acts as in the OP's scenario. I don't think the laws are silent about this state of affairs. Simply penalizing player two doesn't seem fair to the opposing side at table two.

[bluejak]

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.

72B1.

 

It tells him he "must not" do something, He has deliberately and with malice aforethought tried to do that something: that is illegal.