Double Trouble

[lamford]

72B1

Which Law did he infringe intentionally?

[bluejak]

Depends on the way he tried to cheat, I suppose.

[lamford]

Depends on the way he tried to cheat, I suppose.

By the way he stated in this example, where we will say that he intended to reveal all after the hand.

[iviehoff]

Depends on the way he tried to cheat, I suppose.

But if an attempt to break a law failed, there wasn't an intentional infringement, because there was no infringment.

 

If 72B1 said instead, "A player must not infringe, or attempt to infringe, a law intentionally...", then it would be all quite clear. I suggest you put that in your card index of possible law improvements for next time the laws are discussed. I can't see what disadvantage there could possibly be in such an amendment.

[nige1]

But if an attempt to break a law failed, there wasn't an intentional infringement, because there was no infringment.

If 72B1 said instead, "A player must not infringe, or attempt to infringe, a law intentionally...", then it would be all quite clear.  I suggest you put that in your card index of possible law improvements for next time the laws are discussed.  I can't see what disadvantage there could possibly be in such an amendment.

The existence of such a card-index is probably wishful thinking on the part of players. Law-makers believe that there is scant room for improvement in the laws. If a card-index exists it is likely to gather dust until the WBFLC next look at the law-book in 2018. The idea of interim incremental tweaking of the laws themselves to clarify intended meaning is anathema to them.

[blackshoe]

Law-makers believe that there is scant room for improvement in the laws.

When did the lawmakers tell you this?

[nige1]

Law-makers believe that there is scant room for improvement in the laws.

When did the lawmakers tell you this?

That is my understanding gleaned from thousands of relevant postings by eminent law-makers like William Schoder. Please consult the Bridge Laws Mailing List, for yourself.

[Vampyr]

Law-makers believe that there is scant room for improvement in the laws.

When did the lawmakers tell you this?

Perhaps the failure to circulate, to those who would actually need to apply the laws, a draft (or even a summary of the proposed changes) before publishing a book which contains some real howlers is an indication?

[blackshoe]

"Thousands" of posts? Maybe, but I doubt it.

 

BLML was the first place I went when I first started learning about the laws. Back then, it was a good place to do so. Later, it became a place where esoteric and pointless argument seemed more important to most posters than how to practically apply the law. I stopped reading it, and while it may have changed yet again, I'm not inclined to waste time trying to find out.

 

We have the laws we have. The WBFLC has, I understand, expressed the intention not to make actual changes to them until the next decennial review. You may not like that — I may not like it — but that's the way it is. Lobby for change if you must — but please don't do it in this forum. We've set up 'Changing Laws…' specifically for those discussions.

[nige1]

"Thousands" of posts? Maybe, but I doubt it.

 

BLML was the first place I went when I first started learning about the laws. Back then, it was a good place to do so. Later, it became a place where esoteric and pointless argument seemed more important to most posters than how to practically apply the law. I stopped reading it, and while it may have changed yet again, I'm not inclined to waste time trying to find out.

 

We have the laws we have. The WBFLC has, I understand, expressed the intention not to make actual changes to them until the next decennial review. You may not like that — I may not like it — but that's the way it is. Lobby for change if you must — but please don't do it in this forum. We've set up 'Changing Laws…' specifically for those discussions.

Unlike some, I readily admit to my mistakes, when I discover them. (But I rarely lie).

Blackshoe posts a one-line put down in the form of a question. I post a polite reply.

Blackshoe then tells me that my answer (but seemingly not his question) is in the wrong forum :)

 

I'd better stop there because I'm about to ask a favour about the moderators' old forum, now defunct. I posted many law-change suggestions, which got little or no support but I would still be grateful for the opportunity to review the criticisms. Is there still an accessible archive anywhere?

[bluejak]

Depends on the way he tried to cheat, I suppose.

By the way he stated in this example, where we will say that he intended to reveal all after the hand.

So he deliberately infringed Law 16C1.

[blackshoe]

Unlike some, I readily admit to my mistakes, when I discover them. (But I rarely lie).

Fair enough, although in view of your complaint about my allegedly putting you down (see below), "unlike some" seems a bit "two wrongs make a right" to me.

 

Blackshoe posts a one-line put down in the form of a question.

 

Okay, if you read it as that, I apologize. The point is that you frequently resort to exaggeration and hyperbole in trying to make your point. It gets tiresome after a while.

 

I post a polite reply.

 

Okay, I can't parse this one. I thought the "put down" to which you referred was my last previous post, in which case the "polite reply" to which you refer must be the post I'm quoting here — but that doesn't make sense to me. No matter, it's not worth arguing about.

 

Blackshoe then tells me that my answer (but seemingly not his question) is in the wrong forum :)

 

You think this is the right forum?

 

Look, we could have set this place up as one forum, where anything goes, and we don't care about thread drift. I suppose we could have called it "rgb" or "blml". But we didn't, because we wanted to have different forums for different laws-related discussions. There will be thread drift anyway, of course — that's the nature of the beast — but we really would like to keep practical, how-does-the-TD-rule, discussions in here, and hypothetical, how-should-the rules-be-changed discussions in "changing laws…" Sorry if we haven't been quicker on the draw in catching the drift, but that too is the nature of the beast.

 

The whole discussion, in this thread, about how to change the laws doesn't belong here, but it's a bit late to try to move it now.

 

I suppose it is appropriate to discuss here whether the law actually allows the TD to, for example, adjust the score when he had UI that pertained to a board other than the one where he used it, but that discussion is almost certain to drift into "what the laws should say" rather than what they do say. Aside from that, this seems to be one of the several places where the practical way to rule doesn't exactly conform to the letter of the law. When that's the case, there's a point at which beating the same dead horse over and over becomes a waste of time. I think we've reached that point.

 

Is there still an accessible archive anywhere?

 

I thought there was, but I can't find it right now. :P

[mjj29]

I'd better stop there because I'm about to ask a favour about the moderators' old forum, now defunct. I posted many law-change suggestions, which got little or no support but I would still be grateful for the opportunity to review the criticisms. Is there still an accessible archive anywhere?

What I managed to scrape from the old forum (most recent stuff, but not all the very old posts) is here: http://iblf.matthew.ath.cx/ it's a static mirror only, so no searching I'm afraid

[lamford]

So he deliberately infringed Law 16C1.

Only if the UI was from a board he was yet to play or was playing.

[bluejak]

I suppose we shall have to differ. I just think this is wrong. I think that if you are not allowed to infringe a Law then the moment you deliberately try to, whether you have infringed Law 16C1 or not, you have infringed Law 72B1.

[blackshoe]

Letter of the law, yes. However, we know that the letter of law is not always what is applied. Consider "from amongst logical alternatives", for example.

 

I'm surprised that anyone here wants to allow someone who acts like a cheat, whatever his motives and whatever he claims to have been willing to accept after the fact, to get away with it.

[lamford]

I'm surprised that anyone here wants to allow someone who acts like a cheat, whatever his motives and whatever he claims to have been willing to accept after the fact, to get away with it.

No, I want the person to be punished just like you do. I think extending the TD's powers would do the trick. Your "from amongst logical alternatives" is indeed another error in wording, but the catchall 73C acts as a backstop there.

[nige1]

I'm surprised that anyone here wants to allow someone who acts like a cheat, whatever his motives and whatever he claims to have been willing to accept after the fact, to get away with it.

No, I want the person to be punished just like you do. I think extending the TD's powers would do the trick. Your "from amongst logical alternatives" is indeed another error in wording, but the catchall 73C acts as a backstop there.

To some it may seem obvious and redundant but I agree with Paul that the laws should make it explicit than a mere attempt to break any law is subject to penalty.

Redress to the other side is inappropriate, however, if no other no law has in fact been broken.

Oops? Wrong forum? :( :( :(

[axman]

So he deliberately infringed Law 16C1.

Only if the UI was from a board he was yet to play or was playing.

In my opinion the most heinous crime in bridge is a third party committing an infraction about which the opponent has no power to prevent but that places such opponent under the sword of Damocles: requiring either they impale themselves upon their own sword while facing the alternative of expulsion.

 

In my previous response in this thread I called attention to just such a heinous crime. And apparently no one has been inclined to endorse such a position. For the record if such a matter were brought to my attention I would investigate if such a remark had been made and by whom. And establishing such facts I would make it clear that post mortems that might be overheard can cause other players immense ethical problems and distress and thus are a breach of L74A2 and assess a 2 board PP. Further, when announcing the move for the next round I will ask that no board be started prior to an announcement; the announcement being:

 

‘Please be advised that it is highly improper to discuss boards within earshot of any player- it can unfairly affect the outcome of one or more results and can impose ethical dilemmas upon others. As such because of the ethical distress that it can cause others it is amongst the activities that L74A2 admonishes players to avoid. I point this out because one pair has just been assessed a 2 board penalty for such breach of L74A2. When you overhear post mortems you are expected to report it to the TD. ’

 

 

 

As for the 16C admonition to call the TD forthwith. I am reluctant to believe that it should be used to convict a player of cheating should he not satisfy the condition. I am inclined to believe that its proper purpose should be to place the TD in a position to act- firstly upon stamping out the improper behavior of the player that opened his trap. As for the disposition of the outcome of boards to be played- just how are suitable conditions to be established that do not unfairly jeopardize the recipient of the errant comments?

 

When I examined closely the provisions of L16C a dozen years ago I was less than satisfied yet could not grasp the underlying principle to express an adequate remedy. I still am unable to do so; but am convinced it is vital to succeed in distilling that principle.

[blackshoe]

Clearly when a player has overheard a remark from another table, the TD should investigate and deal with the person who made that remark. However, Law 74A2 begins "A player should carefully avoid…" When the law uses "should", an infraction is "not often penalized". That said, at least a warning would be appropriate, and if the miscreant should have known better through experience, then a PP — but I think 20 times the "normal" PP is a bit much.

[lamford]

That said, at least a warning would be appropriate, and if the miscreant should have known better through experience, then a PP — but I think 20 times the "normal" PP is a bit much.

I think Axman might have intended a standard PP on each of the two boards "affected", but I may be wrong.

[bluejak]

Well axman did seem to think that a fairly minor infraction was the worst crime in bridge.

 

It isn't. It is a game which leads to discussion between partners. It is normal, and while of course it should not be loud enough for others to hear, that is no worse than putting twelve cards in one hand and fourteen in another.

[dburn]

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?

Yes, of course. That which "informed" (in the archaic sense) his action was extraneous; the fact that the "information" (in the contemporary sense) did not relate to the board he was actually playing does not matter.

 

Suppose that a player X is considering his opening lead on the final board (24 at his table) of a pairs tournament, and suppose that he hears someone remark "you should lead the ace of spades". Believing this remark to be addressed surreptitiouly to him by some well-wisher, he leads the ace of spades, and that defeats the contract while some other logically alternative lead would not have done.

 

But the remark was not addressed to X - some fellow who had already played all the boards was telling his partner as they left the room what she should have done on board 17.

 

Has X acted illegally? Yes, of course he has - he has allowed his choice of action from among logical alternatives to be extraneously "informed". That the datum "you should lead the ace of spades" had no bearing on board 24 is irrelevant; X has treated it as "information" by permitting it to "inform" his choice of play, and he is therefore in breach of Law 16A3 (and some others).

 

You seem to me to be hung up on the notion that information about board 17 cannot be held to be information about board 24. You should not be; it is true that data about board 17 is (or, for the purists among us, are) not data about board 24, but as I have attempted to show (and as you appear to me to have accepted), that which informs our actions does not have to be a datum, let alone a fact.

 

In short, as Robin may or may not have said a long while ago, Law 16A3 applies to this player's actions even though Law 16C1 does not apply to the "information" he has received. The score should be adjusted accordingly, despite the views of BLML (or perhaps because of them, although Eric Landau still talks a great deal of sense and Herman de Wael still talks).

[lamford]

You seem to me to be hung up on the notion that information about board 17 cannot be held to be information about board 24. You should not be; it is true that data about board 17 is (or, for the purists among us, are) not data about board 24, but as I have attempted to show (and as you appear to me to have accepted), that which informs our actions does not have to be a datum, let alone a fact.

Your point of view is one interpretation of information. And I agree that it does not have to be a fact. However, a player may use it if

 

"a) 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."

 

So, the fact that raising 1NT to 3NT with a (4 3)-3-3 hand worked twice so far this session, clearly allows him to try this again, as it is "extraneous" but clearly not "information about a board he is playing or yet to play", but about a board that he has played. Here, he knows the information is about a board he has played, but the Laws do not differentiate between the two types of information.

 

In our example, the information might be about any board, or, for that matter, any event; the player mistakenly thinks it is about the board he is playing. "Computer-dealt hands produce more singletons" is somebody's comment about some board or other, which the player overhears. The player, after the tea-break, successfully finesses a queen when holding nine trumps, for that reason, which, it transpired, was completely unrelated to this board, or to this issue, and, in fact, about a board he had already played. "About a board" surely means "concerning a specific board where a comment was made". When a player informs the TD that he has overheard a remark, the TD will only take action on the board where the remark is made. Indeed the procedure spelled out clearly relates only to the board affected, and not to any other boards. 16C2 and 16C3 do not state so, but it is implied that the action is taken on that board only. Law 39A states: "All calls after the final pass of the auction are cancelled." It is implied that this means "on that board".

 

So, your interpretation that information about board 24 in event A, or board 24 in event B, cannot be used by the player to guide his selection on board 17 in event A is not automatic. Which Law precludes his use of this information? Common sense does, especially if it is an attempt to cheat, and I totally agree that such behaviour should be discouraged. But I am not convinced by your argument that the information is necessarily unauthorised, within the meaning of any Laws. Nor am I convinced that "about a board he is playing or yet to play" really means "about a board he thinks he is playing or thinks he is yet to play".

 

We are not disagreeing about what is ethically correct. We disagree as to whether the Laws are adequate to deal with the "violation". They are, under 12A1, if we decide there has been a violation.