Definition of opponent

[Fluffy]

On a team match a player approaches too much a table that is playing and comments about the board being played loudly enough to be heard.

 

It is obviously UI for his team mates, but what about their opponents?, is it AI?

[blackshoe]

Let me get this straight: this player is a member of one of the teams at the table, and he makes a comment about a board in progress?

[billw55]

Let me get this straight: this player is a member of one of the teams at the table, and he makes a comment about a board in progress?

That is indeed what he seems to be saying. Sounds pretty flagrant to me. On top of whatever ruling applies to the current board, I would try to apply an individual sanction of some kind.

[kenrexford]

Interesting problem. I think it has to be authorized for the non-offending side.

[sanst]

Law 16 provides the answer: it's UI for both sides. That law doesn't say anything about teams, only about sides, a side being two players who contstitute a partnership. Since the information is not authorizeed according to 16A, it's unauthorized and should be treated according to 16C3/2c.

That the culprit should be punished, is obvious and a penalty of 2 or 3 VP's is in order, since this is a serious offence.

[axman]

On a team match a player approaches too much a table that is playing and comments about the board being played loudly enough to be heard.

 

It is obviously UI for his team mates, but what about their opponents?, is it AI?

 

My thinking is that it is unseemly to coerce (a la L16) someone who did nothing wrong to disadvantage himself. With that in mind...

 

As WBF2008 stands now there is room to interpret crucial passages. For instance:

 

definitions- 'Opponent — a player of the other side; a member of the partnership to which one is opposed.'

 

Are not all other entrants, as such, members of a partnership to which one is opposed? I do think so. Reading L16A2:

 

Players may also take account ... of the traits of their opponents,....

 

provides room to contemplate that when entrants (which is to say opponents) at some other table improperly speak so loudly as to be overheard, that the anointment of authorization occurs such that it falls outside the compulsion of L16C1:

 

When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information ….

 

WBF2008 probably was not written with the above in mind, but if it were, there likely would be considerably fewer bad actors.

[Vampyr]

Law 16 provides the answer: it's UI for both sides. That law doesn't say anything about teams, only about sides, a side being two players who contstitute a partnership. Since the information is not authorizeed according to 16A, it's unauthorized and should be treated according to 16C3/2c.

That the culprit should be punished, is obvious and a penalty of 2 or 3 VP's is in order, since this is a serious offence.

 

Probably more than this; isn't 1.5 VP standard for when a member of a completely unrelated team who discusses a board within earshot of a team still playing?

[RMB1]

Probably more than this; isn't 1.5 VP standard ...

 

There is nothing in the law book about standard (procedural/disciplinary) penalties in Victory Points, and no de facto standard penalty in the different Regulatory Authority regulations.

[Vampyr]

There is nothing in the law book about standard (procedural/disciplinary) penalties in Victory Points, and no de facto standard penalty in the different Regulatory Authority regulations.

 

What is normal in the EBU?

[RMB1]

What is normal in the EBU?

For long matches, 0.5VP is the standard procedural penalty (WB 8.12.3), and 1VP is the standard disciplinary penalty (WB 8.90.2).