The Rabbit's Revenge

[axman]

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.

 

There seems to be some consternation over what a player is and what a spectator is. Consider:

 

Player- one of the four contestants playing a board

Spectator- a person watching the play; a non player present at the table

[blackshoe]

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

I would say he's not playing unless he's sitting at a table and has cards in his hand (or is dummy). So when he is "roved out", he's not a player for that round. As things are, the laws leave this determination up to the RA, the TO, or the director, in that order. If I were the RA, I'd make a regulation defining when a person is a player and when he is not. Absent such a regulation, the TO should make one. Absent that, it's up to the TD, who should at least be consistent.

[pran]

I would say he's not playing unless he's sitting at a table and has cards in his hand (or is dummy). So when he is "roved out", he's not a player for that round. As things are, the laws leave this determination up to the RA, the TO, or the director, in that order. If I were the RA, I'd make a regulation defining when a person is a player and when he is not. Absent such a regulation, the TO should make one. Absent that, it's up to the TD, who should at least be consistent.

When I was trained to become a certified Tournament Director back in 1980 our instructor told us about an incident during a masters final where he had been CTD:

 

He heard the RAMA commentator suddenly exclaiming "he revoked!" and prepared himself for the expected call to the table. There was none, and he did not intervene.

 

Why not? Because he became aware of the irregularity as a spectator, not in his capacity as a Director!

 

The laws were different at that time, today the Director is specifically instructed to take proper action on any irregularity regardless of how he becomes aware of it.

 

But even today it is important to be aware of the difference: Any person watching a game without actively taking part in it is a spectator, not a player in that game. (We need no explicit law to this effect.)

[campboy]

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".

As a professional mathematician I do in fact know what "corollary" means.

 

The point is that this can't be logically inferred, so none of "corollary", "proposition" or "theorem" are appropriate. What you have inferred is the converse of the law as written. This is not a valid logical deduction (see affirming the consequent).

[lamford]

As a professional mathematician I do in fact know what "corollary" means.

 

The point is that this can't be logically inferred, so none of "corollary", "proposition" or "theorem" are appropriate. What you have inferred is the converse of the law as written. This is not a valid logical deduction (see affirming the consequent).

I was not using it in its mathematical sense. I was using it in the general linguistic sense of "something that naturally follows". What naturally follows here is that someone is either a player, a spectator, or an official. They could be more than one of these, but anyone who is not a player or official has the status of a spectator. It naturally follows that the other two categories are "player" and "official". Unless the TD specifies otherwise.

[lamford]

I would say he's not playing unless he's sitting at a table and has cards in his hand (or is dummy).

So, in the short break between boards for a two board round he is not a player, but a spectator, and cannot therefore comment on the last hand? That seems ludicrous.

[lamford]

There seems to be some consternation over what a player is and what a spectator is. Consider:

 

Player- one of the four contestants playing a board

Spectator- a person watching the play; a non player present at the table

There seems to be some consternation over what a player is and what a spectator is. Consider:

 

Player- someone who has made a call on any hand (that could include the TD who fills in for a latecomer in round one).

Spectator- someone other than a player or official, and probably excluding the catering staff as well.

 

Now someone can move from one category to the other; if the TD so specifies.

 

The whole discussion is rather irrelevant, as there is no dispute that SB had unauthorised information from another source and the TD dealt with that. It only seems relevant for whether to give the Chimp a PP or DP. If he is a spectator, I don't see how he can be given a PP or DP anyway. He can be asked to leave the room, but that would have screwed up the movement when he was roved back in.

[barmar]

As a professional mathematician I do in fact know what "corollary" means.

The Laws are just barely usable as plain English. Forget about trying to apply mathematical rigor when interpreting them.

[blackshoe]

So, in the short break between boards for a two board round he is not a player, but a spectator, and cannot therefore comment on the last hand? That seems ludicrous.

It is ludicrous. So is suggesting it.

[Zelandakh]

So somebody changes to a spectator in between the boards of a two-board round? Get real.

I think you need to read the law book again or perhaps have a chat with SB. The play period of board 1 continues until the cards are removed from board 2 so there is no need for the players to become spectators. On the other hand, if one of them got up between boards and started kibbing at another table, they would indeed gain the status of spectator in addition to being competitors, just as with the Chimp case.

[lamford]

I think you need to read the law book again or perhaps have a chat with SB. The play period of board 1 continues until the cards are removed from board 2 so there is no need for the players to become spectators. On the other hand, if one of them got up between boards and started kibbing at another table, they would indeed gain the status of spectator in addition to being competitors, just as with the Chimp case.

The play period is not relevant. The play period of board 2 of a two-board round ends when the last board of a round is quitted. If you think the players then gain the status of spectator until they take their cards out of the board for the next round, then they should not be commenting on the previous board, as many "players" do. The normal meaning of "spectator" is someone not playing in the event. If you think that the only players are those actually playing at that time, somebody on the substitute bench in a football game would be a "spectator" not a "player". Campboy would claim that he must be a spectator because he is watching the play. Perhaps, if he comes on to the pitch, PC Campboy would arrest him under the law that prevents a spectator coming on to the field of play at any time?

[Vampyr]

I think you are confusing player "at the table" with player "in the competition". A person watching and not taking part in a hand is a spectator of that hand. Consider Law 3: four players play at each table. It does not say "at least four". Are you suggesting that specifyng four players at a does not exclude the existence of a fifth player? A sixth? A twentieth? You can, but I do not think you will get many people to agree with you.

[lamford]

I think you are confusing player "at the table" with player "in the competition". A person watching and not taking part in a hand is a spectator of that hand. Consider Law 3: four players play at each table. It does not say "at least four". Are you suggesting that specifyng four players at a does not exclude the existence of a fifth player? A sixth? A twentieth? You can, but I do not think you will get many people to agree with you.

I agree with you completely that the Chimp was not one of the four players at the table. I am not arguing that. He is still a "player", or there would be no point giving him a PP or DP. I have never seen either of these given to a spectator, so we need to correctly define him as a "player" and not a "spectator". The law which states:

"A spectator at the table shall not draw attention to any aspect of the game." should read:

"Neither a spectator at the table, nor anyone other than one of the four players except the TD, may draw attention to any aspect of the game." Otherwise somebody at the next table could chip in, when they are clearly not spectators.

 

One can use "90B3: discussion of the bidding, play or result of a board, which may be overheard at another table." and award a PP, but in this example the Chimp's comment could not have been overheard at another table. However, it would be nice to learn from a TD under which law the Chimp would get a PP and which Law he would be deemed to have breached. And it would be nice to learn if any TD out there would apply Law 76 to someone sitting out for a round.

[blackshoe]

One can use "90B3: discussion of the bidding, play or result of a board, which may be overheard at another table." and award a PP, but in this example the Chimp's comment could not have been overheard at another table. However, it would be nice to learn from a TD under which law the Chimp would get a PP and which Law he would be deemed to have breached. And it would be nice to learn if any TD out there would apply Law 76 to someone sitting out for a round.

If we go with "the Chimp is a player, not a spectator" he is still not one of the four players involved in actually playing the hand, so IMO Law 90B3 applies to him in this case.

 

Law 76A1 says that spectators are subject to the control of the director. Would you assert that since players are not spectators they are not subject to the control of the director?

 

Law 76B lists five things that a spectator is prohibited from doing. It seems to me that the Chimp in this case should also be prohibited from doing these things. Do you disagree?

[lamford]

If we go with "the Chimp is a player, not a spectator" he is still not one of the four players involved in actually playing the hand, so IMO Law 90B3 applies to him in this case.

I think that the expression "another table" exonerates the Chimp here, unless he is overheard by another table. "Another table" must mean "other than the one he is sitting at".

 

Law 76A1 says that spectators are subject to the control of the director. Would you assert that since players are not spectators they are not subject to the control of the director?

I think all of Law 76 is for spectators, not for players. The clue is hidden away in the heading: "LAW 76: SPECTATORS". However, Law 81 does give the TD or his delegate control of the players.

 

Law 76B lists five things that a spectator is prohibited from doing. It seems to me that the Chimp in this case should also be prohibited from doing these things. Do you disagree?

I don't think Law 76B applies to players at all. The typical sanctions, such as removal from the playing area, would be too big a disruption to the tournament. I think the only way round the issue here is to apply:

 

91B. Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty

The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): <snip>

 

and then to use TD discretion to add "commenting on a board in progress while sitting out" to the list of offences therein. That goes against natural justice, in that, in theory, "chewing gum" could be added to the list of offences by a draconian TD, but the Chimp probably knew he was doing something that could be construed as meriting a PP.

[blackshoe]

That goes against natural justice

Pfui.

[lamford]

Pfui.

You may mock, but what is the point of having a detailed list of offences which merit a PP if the TD can add new ones to them on a whim? Players should be told what they can and cannot do. It is not difficult to add "commenting on a board in play while sitting out".

 

I bet if you asked people at our club if they could point out that dummy has a card in the wrong suit when they were watching while sitting out, they would not have a clue whether they could or not; and they would not have much more of a clue after reading the Laws. In fact I do not have a clue either after reading them.

[blackshoe]

You may mock, but what is the point of having a detailed list of offences which merit a PP if the TD can add new ones to them on a whim? Players should be told what they can and cannot do. It is not difficult to add "commenting on a board in play while sitting out".

First, nobody but you is suggesting the TD might issue PPs on a whim. Second, that list is headed with "The following are examples of offenses subject to procedural penalty (but the offenses are not limited to these)". Clearly the list is not exhaustive. Third, you want a change to the laws. You won't get it here. But you know that already.

 

I bet if you asked people at our club if they could point out that dummy has a card in the wrong suit when they were watching while sitting out, they would not have a clue whether they could or not; and they would not have much more of a clue after reading the Laws. In fact I do not have a clue either after reading them.

Nor would I, for I would first have to figure out what "has a card in the wrong suit" means.

[lamford]

Nor would I, for I would first have to figure out what "has a card in the wrong suit" means.

You already know that. But just in case you don't we will define it as short for "incorrectly sorted into suits as specified by Law 41D, in that one or more cards of different suits are present in one or more of the columns". And I do not know if that definition is sufficient, nor does it matter. I think everyone understands what "sorted into suits" means.

 

And while you are reading that, you can tell me where in the Laws it states that a player sitting out cannot point out that Law 41D has been breached. And it seems that if the Rabbit had noticed that he had a diamond among his hearts, then he would be unable to correct it or draw attention to it.

 

9A2 Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may draw attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period.

 

and 9A3 When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded.

 

But we have all noticed, as dummy, that we have placed two cards in the wrong order and illegally corrected it, haven't we?

[lamford]

"The following are examples of offenses subject to procedural penalty (but the offenses are not limited to these)".

For the TD to award a PP, therefore, there needs to be an offense. How does the player establish what the offenses are if they not listed?

[blackshoe]

I would think "offense" refers to breaches of correct procedure.

[Vampyr]

Lamford, if you have a point it must be that you can issue penalties to "players" but not "spectators". Rule how you like when you are the director.

 

You might ask the roving par to carry a card with their pair number on it, to,avoid confusion about whose table it is when the normal pair is displaced.

[Zelandakh]

Lamford, if you have a point it must be that you can issue penalties to "players" but not "spectators".

Can you think of any reason why we cannot issue penalties to competitors that have the status of spectator when they interfere at the play of another table?

[lamford]

Can you think of any reason why we cannot issue penalties to competitors that have the status of spectator when they interfere at the play of another table?

There is no reason. However, PPs are normally issued when someone "knows" they should not be doing something. Here the Chimp would have had to have known that he was being classed as a spectator for two boards, even though he was not specified as one by the TD.

 

If the Rabbit had noticed that he had put a diamond in with his hearts a few seconds after putting the dummy down, and he had corrected it, then the effect would have been the same, and the contract would still make (although as SB pointed out the Chimp's comment had no effect on the result of the hand anyway). Would you now give a PP to dummy for breach of 9A3? Exactly the same principle applies to dummy as a spectator now the play period has commenced. And if a remark about a board is overheard at the next table, it is normal to give a PP only if it affects the bidding or play at the new table, but not if it does not. It is the same here and I would have issued a warning only. Especially as there are glaring omissions in the laws.