blackshoe Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 This is the internet. Wandering off topic is a given. But the purpose of "Laws and Rulings" and "Simple Rulings" is to show people how to make good rulings and what, in a particular case, the ruling should be. "I think the rules should be different" is a far cry from that. We set up "changing laws..." as a place for such discussions, and we'd like to keep them there. Occasional brief digressions are not a problem, but if the thread gets hijacked, it will get moved. Sorry if that offends you. We just don't think it's a good idea if discussions of how the rules should (in some peoples' view anyway) be different obscures the main purpose of the two "rulings" forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 However, this clause does not prevent a player misleading an opponent by a question. Certainly none of the definitions of remark I can find include question, and this might be another bug in the Laws (and no, there is no need to move the thread, blackshoe or bluejak).Does this essentially mean that the only kind of question you're not supposed to ask is one that's only for partner's benefit, since the Laws specifically prohibit that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted July 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 Does this essentially mean that the only kind of question you're not supposed to ask is one that's only for partner's benefit, since the Laws specifically prohibit that?I think one can ask any question as declarer without the opponents claiming 73D2 redress. Questions by a defender can convey UI, but if they mislead there is no redress, which tallies with gordontd's opinion that a defender asking about the queen of trumps when looking at it does not suffer a penalty. Remarks by a declarer can mislead. Remarks by a defender can both mislead and convey UI, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 Do the Laws actually forbid asking a question whose sole purpose is to mislead an opponent? For example, suppose that declarer in the original post had said "I asked about their leads because I wanted to convince East that West had the jack." Which Law would he have broken? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfa1010 Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 True, but the TD does not award an offender redress under 73F for a violation of the Proprieties. The Laws still requires a player not to mislead [any] opponent by means of "remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure", under 73D2. However, this clause does not prevent a player misleading an opponent by a question. Certainly none of the definitions of remark I can find include question, and this might be another bug in the Laws (and no, there is no need to move the thread, blackshoe or bluejak).If you insist not to subsumize a totally superfluous question under "remark" then you might use that the list of ways to mislead an opponent is not exhaustive in 73D2 - compare "deviation from correct procedure" with the non-exhaustive list in 74C. I think it is an intolerable result that it is lawful to try deliberately to mislead an opponent by posing cunning questions with that purpose alone (see Andy's post above). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 If you insist not to subsumize a totally superfluous question under "remark" then you might use that the list of ways to mislead an opponent is not exhaustive in 73D2 - compare "deviation from correct procedure" with the non-exhaustive list in 74C. I think it is an intolerable result that it is lawful to try deliberately to mislead an opponent by posing cunning questions with that purpose alone (see Andy's post above).Usually when a list is not intended to be exhaustive, there's a qualifier like "such as" or "for example" preceding it. But even if that list is just examples, they all fall under the category of "extraneous or deviations". Questions about the opponents' methods are perfectly legals, except in the case where you ask solely for partner's benefit. That's why it's been suggested that this is an unintended consequence of the Laws, which need to be refined if we consider it intolerable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfa1010 Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 Usually when a list is not intended to be exhaustive, there's a qualifier like "such as" or "for example" preceding it.Yes. Usually. But even if that list is just examples, they all fall under the category of "extraneous or deviations". Questions about the opponents' methods are perfectly legals, except in the case where you ask solely for partner's benefit.Disagree with that distinction between extraneous or deviations. Hesitating is also a perfectly legal, except when it is done to mislead an opponent. That's why it's been suggested that this is an unintended consequence of the Laws, which need to be refined if we consider it intolerable.I agree that a refinement would be nice. In the meantime we have to make do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 I don't understand why it matters whether questions are covered by 73D2 or not. If we were going to rule on the basis that declarer was deliberately misleading defenders then we would need much more evidence to that effect; if not then 73D2 would not be relevant, since it says "may not attempt to mislead". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 I don't understand why it matters whether questions are covered by 73D2 or not. If we were going to rule on the basis that declarer was deliberately misleading defenders then we would need much more evidence to that effect; if not then 73D2 would not be relevant, since it says "may not attempt to mislead". If we did decide to rule on the the basis that declarer was deliberately misleading defender, which law would we use? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 If we did decide to rule on the the basis that declarer was deliberately misleading defender, which law would we use?I don't understand what could be wrong with using Laws 73D2, 73F and 12 ? :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 Personally (and possibly because I'm often guilty of wandering off-topic), I'd welcome a little more laisser faire from our moderators.More? At the moment when a thread wanders off-topic we deal with it in about one case in twenty: are you sure you want more? I think you get a lot, and sufficient, ‘laisser faire’. But I do think that people who ask questions do get short-changed somewhat by threads that do not answer the question asked, but instead answer, at length, with what they think the answer should be. How about fairness for opening posters? Actually, I think the simple answer is we have the balance right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 Do the Laws actually forbid asking a question whose sole purpose is to mislead an opponent? For example, suppose that declarer in the original post had said "I asked about their leads because I wanted to convince East that West had the jack." Which Law would he have broken?73D2. It's a remark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 A question is a remark? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 I don't understand what could be wrong with using Laws 73D2, 73F and 12 ? :rolleyes: The problem is that the list in 73D2 doesn't include questions about the meaning of an opponent's call or play. Someone upthread alluded to the fact that when a list is not intended to be exhaustive, it usually includes a qualifying phrase, such as "or the like", such a phrase being absent from 73D2. Either 73D2 applies, or it does not. It seems to me the latter, given the paragraph above. If someone wishes to argue that 73D2 does apply, I think he should explain his reasoning. If 73D2 does not apply, then we are left with the question asked upthread: which law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 A question is a remark? These days, some seem to think that it is possible to turn a remark into a question merely by adding a question mark on to the end, so presumably a question is a subset of the wider meaning of "remark". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 What some seem to think is not necessarily true. In this case, I would say definitely not true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 Perhaps it is an oversight, perhaps intentional, that 73D2 mentions remarks but not questions. By any definition I have looked up, a question does not seem to be a type of remark. However, A TD might rule in a different circumstance that something thinly disguised as a question was really a remark and intended to deceive or to disconcert an opponent. Since the questions by Declarer in the OP were clearly questions, we still cannot find anything in the current Laws for redress when they deceived. And I don't believe for a minute that Gnasher's posts mean he approves of what Declarer did in the OP case or would do it himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 The problem is that the list in 73D2 doesn't include questions about the meaning of an opponent's call or play. Someone upthread alluded to the fact that when a list is not intended to be exhaustive, it usually includes a qualifying phrase, such as "or the like", such a phrase being absent from 73D2. Interestingly, Law 73F does include the phrase "or the like". Either 73D2 applies, or it does not. It seems to me the latter, given the paragraph above. If someone wishes to argue that 73D2 does apply, I think he should explain his reasoning. If 73D2 does not apply, then we are left with the question asked upthread: which law? A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.DeceptionA player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience). Once might reasonably conclude from Law 73E, coming as it does directly after Law 73D2, that the only appropriate method of deceiving an opponent is through a call or play. In my opinion, if a player asks a question, the only point of which is to mislead an opponent, then the play he subsequently makes is unduly delayed by the question. This means that the play has been made with undue hesitancy, which is a breach of Law 73D2. In this circumstance, Law 73F authorises the TD to adjust. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 In my opinion, if a player asks a question, the only point of which is to mislead an opponent, then the play he subsequently makes is unduly delayed by the question. This means that the play has been made with undue hesitancy, which is a breach of Law 73D2. In this circumstance, Law 73F authorises the TD to adjust.Wow...I love it. A very big stretch to find it, but I love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 A very big stretch indeed. I don't think we can stretch the law this far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 Probably not. But it sure would feel better than the stretches to allow corrected IB's to become authorized information, or the OP's caper of declarer to slide ---continuing to refer to declarer as impeccably ethical. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 The ethics of the game are defined by its laws. The question was legal, therefore not unethical. Whether it's unethical in some wider sense is not relevant to a ruling. As to other "stretches", well, those are questions for another day. And I would not refer to a declarer who asked this question as "impeccably ethical", I'd refer to him as "not unethical according to the laws of duplicate bridge". I'm pretty sure he'd be able to tell the difference. B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 I would not refer to a declarer who asked this question as "impeccably ethical", I'd refer to him as "not unethical according to the laws of duplicate bridge". I'm pretty sure he'd be able to tell the difference. B-)Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhenrikj Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 73E anyone? It's allowed to deceive a player by a call or play....but that should mean that all other types of deceptions is not allowed. If all types of deceptions is allowed then we need no 73F so there must be a reason why only some methods of deception is mentioned there... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 No thanks. All 73E says is that deception via a call or play alone is okay. It doesn't imply that other forms are not okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.