The Rabbit's Revenge

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=shaqjt9843dakqj5c&w=s32hd82ckqjt98765&n=sak754h765d3ca432&e=sqjt986hk2dt9764c&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=5cpp6hp7hppp]399|300[/hv]

I have been asked by barmar whether there were any other rulings involving the Rabbit or Secretary Bird from last week's duplicate. I had thought barmar had some antipathy towards the latter, but it appears that he has mellowed. The only other ruling that the TD had to deal with was the one above where SB, South, really did have a 6H bid, and the Rabbit can perhaps be forgiven for raising to seven, especially as he thought he had four trumps. Dummy went down with the three of diamonds in with his hearts, and West led the king of clubs. Declarer played the ace from dummy and East gave the matter some thought. "It does not matter what you do," claimed SB. "I have them all ...". The Chimp, who was watching having been roved out, chipped in with "there is a diamond in among the hearts". SB was quick off the mark. "... unless there is a singleton king of hearts offside", he continued. "If you ruff I am home, if not I will finesse the heart." The TD was called and East was apopletic. "The Chimp had no right to point out that dummy had a diamond in with his hearts". "He is a spectator and under 74B5: A spectator at the table shall not draw attention to any aspect of the game." SB was quick to respond: "However, 76D states: Any person in the playing area, other than a player or a tournament official, has the status of a spectator unless the Director specifies differently. It does not say 'other than a player not sitting out' " "The Chimp was a "player" who had been roved out as part of the movement, which is why he was watching this board", he argued. "In any case, no advantage was gleaned from his remark, as, when I duly led the heart from dummy, and East played low, I would have noticed that the Rabbit had a diamond among his hearts and finessed the heart". "While I did think before claiming that there was only one heart missing, it would have been irrational to play for the drop for a player of my class when the clubs were known to be 9-0 and when East produced a small heart. In addition I had not completed my claim statement before I stated I would finesse."

 

How, do you rule? And do you take any action against the "spectator", or was he a "player" within the definitions of the Laws and therefore exempt from the provision of 74B5, having not been designated a spectator by the TD?

[pran]

The term "player" is defined in laws 3 - 5 and designates the four persons constituting the two pairs playing at the same table.

 

So the Chimp was indeed a spectator.

 

Specifically, if he was in any way related* to either side at the table (sharing the interests of that side) his intervention should result in a ruling against that side.

 

*Such relation can for instance be familiar, club membership or other associations.

[gszes]

A somewhat similar theme to other problem. The original claim (in conjunction with SB statement I thought there was only 1 heart missing) indicates declarer intended to pull the trump at first opportunity. The sad part is that showboating (while inferior) is not irrational. It would be totally reasonable for SB to ruff the club A with the heart Q (with a flair for the dramatic) and lay down the heart ace to drop the stiff K. Thinking quickly in the face of new information does not change this fact. Not only that it shows a remarkable lack of ethics to try and cover this up. SO I rule the chimp gets penalized (severity depending on all sorts of conditions) for providing unauthorized information. The board is score 7h - 1.

SB may be subject to ethics charges. Who said bridge is "fun"?

[mink]

... It would be totally reasonable for SB to ruff the club A with the heart Q ...

 

I do not think so, this would not be normal play. He wins trick 1 in the dummy if East does not ruff. Maybe SB was aware of the misplaced ♦3 from the start and would have given the same explanation for his claim if the Chimp's interruption did not take place. But even if he originally thought that ♥K was opps' only ♥ card (which we cannot know and cannot prove), he would certainly take the finesse when East produces ♥2 in trick 2. So the Chimp's remark fortunately did not cause any problem. Nevertheless, he should receive some disciplinary penalty.

[lamford]

A somewhat similar theme to other problem. The original claim (in conjunction with SB statement I thought there was only 1 heart missing) indicates declarer intended to pull the trump at first opportunity. The sad part is that showboating (while inferior) is not irrational. It would be totally reasonable for SB to ruff the club A with the heart Q (with a flair for the dramatic) and lay down the heart ace to drop the stiff K. Thinking quickly in the face of new information does not change this fact. Not only that it shows a remarkable lack of ethics to try and cover this up. SO I rule the chimp gets penalized (severity depending on all sorts of conditions) for providing unauthorized information. The board is score 7h - 1.

SB may be subject to ethics charges. Who said bridge is "fun"?

I suggest you read the claim laws and rule according to them, as mink as done, rather than make up your own.

[lamford]

The term "player" is defined in laws 3 - 5 and designates the four persons constituting the two pairs playing at the same table.

 

So the Chimp was indeed a spectator.

 

Specifically, if he was in any way related* to either side at the table (sharing the interests of that side) his intervention should result in a ruling against that side.

 

*Such relation can for instance be familiar, club membership or other associations.

Where on earth do you find these references to "relations"? The Norwegian book of Rules for Happy Families? Laws 3-5 define the players at the table. The Chimp was a player sitting out and not at the table. Just as the person who was North on the adjacent table was also a player. So he was not a "spectator" as he had not been defined as one by the TD and therefore he was not subject to law 74B5. By all means correct the laws so that a player who is sitting out is deemed to be a spectator, but do not make up new laws as you go along.

 

If you are going to give the Chimp a PP or DP, you have to find a law that he breached. And it wasn't 74B5 as he was not a "spectator".

[blackshoe]

Law 91A: In performing his duty to maintain order and discipline, the Director is empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points or to suspend a contestant for the current session or any part thereof. The Director’s decision under this clause is final and may not be overruled by an appeals committee (see Law 93B3).

Getting up from your assigned table and interfering with the play at another table is certainly a breach of order and discipline.

[campboy]

Law 76D says "Any person in the playing area, other than a player or a tournament official, has the status of a spectator unless the Director specifies differently."

 

This is not a definition of "spectator". Indeed, it does not say that such a player is a spectator, merely that he has the status of one. In other words, for the purpose of this law, random people in the playing area are to be treated as spectators even if they are not actually watching the game.

 

Anyone who is actually spectating, like the Chimp, simply is a spectator with no need of any extra law to give him the status of one.

[pran]

Where on earth do you find these references to "relations"?

We have them most relevant in our COC for team matches where "related spectators" are not permitted at a table where a match is still in progress.

 

In events for pairs no player is allowed to watch the play at another table for instance during a sit-out.

 

And I find such rules very sensible.

[weejonnie]

Where on earth do you find these references to "relations"? The Norwegian book of Rules for Happy Families? Laws 3-5 define the players at the table. The Chimp was a player sitting out and not at the table. Just as the person who was North on the adjacent table was also a player. So he was not a "spectator" as he had not been defined as one by the TD and therefore he was not subject to law 74B5. By all means correct the laws so that a player who is sitting out is deemed to be a spectator, but do not make up new laws as you go along.

 

If you are going to give the Chimp a PP or DP, you have to find a law that he breached. And it wasn't 74B5 as he was not a "spectator".

 

Ah - so then we have a law 16 - "information from extraneous sources"

 

C. Extraneous Information from Other Sources

1. When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information.

2. If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play he may, before any call has been made:

(a) adjust the players’ positions at the table, if the type of contest and scoring permit, so that the player with information about one hand will hold that hand; or (b) if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for those contestants; or

© allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result; or (d) award an artificial adjusted score

 

So SB is NOT ALLOWED to know that the ♦3 is mixed up.

[sanst]

I have been asked by barmar whether there were any other rulings involving the Rabbit or Secretary Bird from last week's duplicate...The only other ruling that the TD had to deal with was the one above where SB, South...

Was this the same event as in The Rabbit's Rithmetic? If so, this pair might have violated Law 5A, if the TD didn't allow them to change seats. SB was North on board 4, now RR sits there.

Rather OT: does SB really trusts RR to sit N?

[Zelandakh]

Was this the same event as in The Rabbit's Rithmetic? If so, this pair might have violated Law 5A, if the TD didn't allow them to change seats. SB was North on board 4, now RR sits there.

Rather OT: does SB really trusts RR to sit N?

It is traditional to rotate the seats when presenting a hand so there is no reason to assume RR was North at either table.

[lamford]

<snip> © allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result

This is exactly what the TD did, and he decided that someone of SB's class would finesse the heart when East produced the two on the first round. He might re-examine the hearts in his hand and dummy, but finesse the heart he would, so he ruled 7H=. This is confirmed by his rapid "change" of claim when he had the unauthorised information from another source. The TD was called immediately, as required, both to report the UI and to rule on the claim.

 

Oscar the Owl, the partner of the Chimp, commented in the bar after. "Curious hands, but logical. Both the rabbit and SB "miscounted" trumps, but the hapless rabbit was forced to take a losing finesse, whereas the "classier" SB was allowed to take a winning finesse".

[lamford]

Law 76D says "Any person in the playing area, other than a player or a tournament official, has the status of a spectator unless the Director specifies differently."

 

This is not a definition of "spectator". Indeed, it does not say that such a player is a spectator, merely that he has the status of one. In other words, for the purpose of this law, random people in the playing area are to be treated as spectators even if they are not actually watching the game.

 

Anyone who is actually spectating, like the Chimp, simply is a spectator with no need of any extra law to give him the status of one.

You are misinterpreting the use of "other than" in Law. This always has the negative connotation that it does not apply to those after "other than". You would not say that a tournament official was a "spectator", so why should you say that a "player" is.

 

For example. In one set of football rules we might have: "If any player, other than the goalkeeper of that side, intentionally handles the ball in their own penalty area, the referee will award a penalty, and will also award a red card if a clear goal-scoring opportunity is denied."

 

There is no question that the goalkeeper is treated differently. Just as a player is treated differently to a spectator in bridge. He is clearly a player, and only a spectator if the TD classifies him as one because he is roved out. You could say that there was TD error in not classifying him as a spectator for that one round, but you cannot rule that he is a spectator when the Laws clearly state that he is not.

[lamford]

Getting up from your assigned table and interfering with the play at another table is certainly a breach of order and discipline.

He did not get up from his assigned table. He sat in a side chair at the same one as he was roved out from as North-South (SB is usually given any Rover because of his meticulous following of procedure) and watched two boards he knew for certain he would not get to play.

[campboy]

You are misinterpreting the use of "other than" in Law. This always has the negative connotation that it does not apply to those after "other than". You would not say that a tournament official was a "spectator", so why should you say that a "player" is.

No, I'm not. Did you read what I wrote at all? Law 76D does not apply to players (or tournament officials), but that doesn't matter. Law 76D just says that in certain cases people have spectator status even if they're not actually spectators. But the Chimp actually is a spectator because he's spectating, and therefore doesn't need a special law to give him spectator status.

[WellSpyder]

You are misinterpreting the use of "other than" in Law. [....] In one set of football rules we might have: "If any player, other than the goalkeeper of that side, intentionally handles the ball in their own penalty area, the referee will award a penalty, and will also award a red card if a clear goal-scoring opportunity is denied."

 

There is no question that the goalkeeper is treated differently. [....]

I am with campboy on this one. We can assume that the goalkeeper is treated differently since otherwise there wouldn't be much need for a rule that only applied to non-goalkeepers. But we can't fully deduce from the rule how the goalkeeper will be treated.

[lamford]

No, I'm not. Did you read what I wrote at all? Law 76D does not apply to players (or tournament officials), but that doesn't matter. Law 76D just says that in certain cases people have spectator status even if they're not actually spectators. But the Chimp actually is a spectator because he's spectating, and therefore doesn't need a special law to give him spectator status.

I did read what you wrote, but disagreed. This is the Law:

76D Any person in the playing area*,other than a player or a tournament official, has the status of a spectator unless the Director specifies differently.

 

It then defines the playing area, but that is not relevant here. The corollary of the above is that a player and tournament official do not have the status of a spectator unless the director specifies so. Therefore, whether the Chimp is actually spectating or not is irrelevant. He is clearly a player, therefore cannot have the status of spectator, unless the TD tells him. "Right, Chimp, for this round I have specified that you are a spectator, so no smart-arse comments."

 

"Player" is not defined, so it takes its normal meaning. Someone playing bridge in that event.

[lamford]

I am with campboy on this one. We can assume that the goalkeeper is treated differently since otherwise there wouldn't be much need for a rule that only applied to non-goalkeepers. But we can't fully deduce from the rule how the goalkeeper will be treated.

Only if your powers of deduction are limited. We can deduce that the goalkeeper is allowed to deliberately handle the ball in his own penalty area and no sanction will be applied for him doing so. Common sense and limited knowledge of football allow us to draw the same conclusions.

 

The really astute logician might conclude that the goalkeeper is also not allowed to handle the ball in the opposing penalty area .. And they might work out that a penalty and red card would not be given for this.

[campboy]

I did read what you wrote, but disagreed. This is the Law:

76D Any person in the playing area*,other than a player or a tournament official, has the status of a spectator unless the Director specifies differently.

 

It then defines the playing area, but that is not relevant here. The corollary of the above is that a player and tournament official do not have the status of a spectator unless the director specifies so. Therefore, whether the Chimp is actually spectating or not is irrelevant. He is clearly a player, therefore cannot have the status of spectator, unless the TD tells him. "Right, Chimp, for this round I have specified that you are a spectator, so no smart-arse comments."

 

"Player" is not defined, so it takes its normal meaning. Someone playing bridge in that event.

No, the converse (not the corollary, which means something quite different) is simply that this law does not bestow the status of a spectator on anyone who is also a player. That is a good thing, because otherwise any player at the table would have the status of a spectator.

 

But if someone actually is a spectator, they don't need to be given the status of a spectator. "Spectator" is not defined, so takes its normal meaning.

[Zelandakh]

"Player" is not defined, so it takes its normal meaning. Someone playing bridge in that event.

That is the normal meaning of the term competitor. The normal meaning of player would be a competitor currently playing.

 

Note also that your goalkeeper logic is fully supportive of campboy's position. A goalkeeper is treated as an outfield player when not in their own penalty area, even though they are still a goalkeeper. This seems to be the logical reading of the various laws that have been quoted here. The Chimp is treated as a spectator for the purposes of what they are allowed to do at the SB table but is still a competitor and can be penalised as such for not having maintained order and disipline. This seems to be a position 100% opposite to yours - he is a competitor and (treated as) a spectator but not (at the SB table) a player.

[WellSpyder]

Only if your powers of deduction are limited. We can deduce that the goalkeeper is allowed to deliberately handle the ball in his own penalty area and no sanction will be applied for him doing so.

This is an assumption, not a deduction. There is nothing in the law you quote that prevents it being followed by another one applying specifically to goalkeepers that is quite different from what you are assuming. There might be rules limiting deliberate handling if the previous touch of the ball was a kick by a teammate rather than an opponent, for example....

[lamford]

This is an assumption, not a deduction. There is nothing in the law you quote that prevents it being followed by another one applying specifically to goalkeepers that is quite different from what you are assuming. There might be rules limiting deliberate handling if the previous touch of the ball was a kick by a teammate rather than an opponent, for example....

That is the case. But laws would be even longer than they are if assumptions were not part of them. And I cannot find another law allowing goalkeepers to use their hands. There is a law preventing them handling the ball outside the box, but again that leads to the assumption that they are allowed to use their hands inside the box, because it is not prohibited.

[lamford]

That is the normal meaning of the term competitor. The normal meaning of player would be a competitor currently playing.

So somebody changes to a spectator in between the boards of a two-board round? Get real. So when dummy says, "you could have made that, partner", he is breaching the rule about spectators commmenting at any time? And what about the bridgebase operator asking dummy what the final contract is? Is that breaching the rule because he is not a "tournament official". I think someone is a "player" from the scheduled start of play until the end of the correction period, including any sit out.

[lamford]

No, the converse (not the corollary, which means something quite different) is simply that this law does not bestow the status of a spectator on anyone who is also a player. That is a good thing, because otherwise any player at the table would have the status of a spectator.

The use of the term "corollary", rather than proposition or theorem, is intrinsically subjective. - Wikipedia. You are using the term "converse", not me. The corollary to law 76D, something which can be logically inferred, is that players and officials do not have the status of spectators. Which is effectively the same as saying "are not spectators".