A retarded rabbit

[barmar]

But you DO have prior knowledge, you know who declared, which as specified in the OP if you play a similar system, means you are also likely to declare if it's a standard auction say 1N-6N, and if you're the much better player ...

Wouldn't it be simpler and more effective to just wait until you see who's sitting where at the beginning of the event, and then choose your seat appropriately? If you see another strong player sitting North, don't put your weak partner in that seat. Rotating the board for just a single hand won't gain you nearly as much.

 

But I suppose if there's a mix of strong and weak players in the North seats, the best you can do is try to get the advantage on a board you have some suspicion will be tricky for partner.

 

Anyway, if the TD has good reason to believe that the Chimp did this intentionally, based on extraneous information, I believe that's outside the scope of the laws we're discussing. They're not intended to address intentional cheating, just failing to be careful in certain circumstances.

[lamford]

Assuming that players have no prior knowledge of the board they are going to play, it’s impossible to know whether you will gain by placing the board in the wrong direction. Note, not “not remotely possible” but absolutely impossible, 100%. Besides, there is non real ground in the Laws for your take on this. I hope that you’re not directing the way you describe here, because you’re way out of line, certainly over here.

Assuming that the tables are placed in order and that the boards are passed down and the players move up or similar, then only someone who is visually impaired can fail to notice which person was declarer, one or two tables away, prior to the board being passed to the table you are about to play. Try looking at a table in play about ten feet away and it is pretty obvious which person is declarer because dummy is not holding any cards, or even not present sometimes. The other gain from rotating the board is that it is much better to be dealer or second in hand than third or fourth in hand if you are partnering a weak player. Bridgebase stats show that about 62% of the time a pair declares the person who makes the first call is declarer. Just think about the times when you shudder when your weak partner opens 1NT and there is almost no way you can play the hand. I also think that there is a significant advantage in being on lead - certainly my Pianola stats suggest that it is - and rotating the board through 180% is routine Chimp behaviour when he thinks he can gain and this is why he has not been allowed to sit North.

 

Note not "not remotely possible" but absolutely certain, 100%. Besides, there is provision in Law 7A and Law 12A1 for an adjustment when this infraction gains. I very much hope that you're not directing contrary the way I described, because you're way out of line, wherever you are. I would have used FYP but there was too much crossing out to do.

[lamford]

Wouldn't it be simpler and more effective to just wait until you see who's sitting where at the beginning of the event, and then choose your seat appropriately? If you see another strong player sitting North, don't put your weak partner in that seat. Rotating the board for just a single hand won't gain you nearly as much.

 

But I suppose if there's a mix of strong and weak players in the North seats, the best you can do is try to get the advantage on a board you have some suspicion will be tricky for partner.

 

Anyway, if the TD has good reason to believe that the Chimp did this intentionally, based on extraneous information, I believe that's outside the scope of the laws we're discussing. They're not intended to address intentional cheating, just failing to be careful in certain circumstances.

I think you are completely missing the point, Barry. There are two distinct situations where rotating the board gains. Firstly, you should always sit North, as you have control of the board and it is usually passed to you. If you see South at the helm on the previous table (even if he is Garozzo) you rotate the board through 180°, vastly increasing your chance of playing the hand.

 

Secondly, if you did not see who was declarer at the previous table, then as North you should rotate 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30 and 31, a list which ChCh recited without pause for breath. This guarantees you will get to call before your hapless partner has a chance to open 1NT.

 

The Chimp boasted that ruthless rotation of all the boards in this list that you are due to play, in conjunction with careful vigilance of the previous table was worth around 20% per session, but then he said "I am joking, of course!"

[blackshoe]

Assuming that the tables are placed in order and that the boards are passed down and the players move up or similar, then only someone who is visually impaired can fail to notice which person was declarer, one or two tables away, prior to the board being passed to the table you are about to play.

Huh. I regularly "fail to notice" that. Should I start wearing dark glasses and carrying a white cane?

[sanst]

Assuming that the tables are placed in order and that the boards are passed down and the players move up or similar, then only someone who is visually impaired can fail to notice which person was declarer, one or two tables away, prior to the board being passed to the table you are about to play.

There are other movements, e.g. those used over here, where the boards remain at the table and the players move, quite often from one side of the room to the other. To make it still more difficult to gain information that way, you can have two, three or more lines with different boards in each line. Assuming that most, if not all, players are basically honest, you shouldn’t take the stand that they are not averse of using the information they can gather from what is happening at the other tables.

But then, you’re directing at a club where most of us wouldn’t play, not with the Chimp and SB welcome. ;)

[lamford]

But then, you’re directing at a club where most of us wouldn’t play, not with the Chimp and SB welcome. ;)

Au contraire. We can only accommodate 18 tables and from time to time turn people away! And the Chimp's favourite book is The Manual of Duplicate Bridge Movements by Manning, and it does not make any difference whether the boards or players move, as the Chimp will always know who played the board the previous time and will note who was dummy. And it is not UI, as it was information that the Chimp possessed when he took his cards from the board, so is expressly permitted by 16A1(d), so he is not cheating in noting this:

 

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 Chimp may use this information in the auction if he has not rotated the board. Rotating the board through 180° however, is a breach of Law 7A ("correctly oriented"), although ChCh always claims it was done in error. Surely this is not allowed to pass without at least an occasional PP in Holland? 7A uses "shall", which according to the laws means: "(a violation will incur a penalty more often than not)". Is a penalty EVER applied in Holland?

[lamford]

Huh. I regularly "fail to notice" that. Should I start wearing dark glasses and carrying a white cane?

I think a trip to Specsavers (or perhaps, in the US, Luxottica) will suffice.

[blackshoe]

Pfui.

[barmar]

I think you are completely missing the point, Barry. There are two distinct situations where rotating the board gains. Firstly, you should always sit North, as you have control of the board and it is usually passed to you.

If the tables are in two rows, as is often the case, then in one row the boards get passed from South to North, in the other row they get passed from North to South. And they get passed laterally between the tables at the ends of the rows.

 

But you can sit in the receiving seat for whichever row you choose. It's probably best for you to sit in the seat that can see the higher numbered table; if you back is to the sending table it will be harder for you to tell who was declarer in the previous round.

 

Has this thread really devolved into discussing the best ways to cheat by knowing who declared when the board was played previously?

[lamford]

Has this thread really devolved into discussing the best ways to cheat by knowing who declared when the board was played previously?

Who said it was cheating? I think rotating the board is illegal, but I could find nothing in the laws preventing you using the information about who declared when the board was played previously. Just as I can find nothing about using the fact that your main rival is 5% clear of you at half-time using the running scores displayed.

[pran]

Who said it was cheating? I think rotating the board is illegal, but I could find nothing in the laws preventing you using the information about who declared when the board was played previously. Just as I can find nothing about using the fact that your main rival is 5% clear of you at half-time using the running scores displayed.

So you haven't yet discovered Law 16D?

[sanst]

So, the Chimp may use this information in the auction if he has not rotated the board. Rotating the board through 180° however, is a breach of Law 7A ("correctly oriented"), although ChCh always claims it was done in error. Surely this is not allowed to pass without at least an occasional PP in Holland? 7A uses "shall", which according to the laws means: "(a violation will incur a penalty more often than not)". Is a penalty EVER applied in Holland?

The answer to your first question is “No”. There are four players at the table and each of them should take the right cards from the board (7B1). So if you’re going to penalize, all four of them should be awarded a PP. To your second question the answer is “Yes”, mostly a warning, but a serious one if the occasion calls for it, like blatant use of UI by a experienced player.

[Cyberyeti]

The answer to your first question is “No”. There are four players at the table and each of them should take the right cards from the board (7B1). So if you’re going to penalize, all four of them should be awarded a PP. To your second question the answer is “Yes”, mostly a warning, but a serious one if the occasion calls for it, like blatant use of UI by a experienced player.

 

TBF if one player does this, the others just accept the only way they can play the board is to pull out theirs in the rotated position and that's what the director would tell them to do anyway and never think of awarding a penalty. He should be called so that the third or fourth time he does penalise.

[pescetom]

Assuming that players have no prior knowledge of the board they are going to play, it’s impossible to know whether you will gain by placing the board in the wrong direction. Note, not “not remotely possible” but absolutely impossible, 100%. Besides, there is non real ground in the Laws for your take on this. I hope that you’re not directing the way you describe here, because you’re way out of line, certainly over here.

 

But that means the Laws are way out of line with reality, because almost every tournament I see people straining to pick up information about the boards played on other tables. Maybe your players are more virtuous, but the Laws have to work everywhere.

[blackshoe]

TBF if one player does this, the others just accept the only way they can play the board is to pull out theirs in the rotated position and that's what the director would tell them to do anyway and never think of awarding a penalty. He should be called so that the third or fourth time he does penalise.

If I were to be called, the first time I would issue a warning. The second time I would issue a PP in MPs or IMPs. If it gets to a third time, I would increase the penalty.

[Cyberyeti]

If I were to be called, the first time I would issue a warning. The second time I would issue a PP in MPs or IMPs. If it gets to a third time, I would increase the penalty.

 

You'd be giving a large number of penalties where I am. Hell it's bad enough not getting a team to sit the same way in both rooms in matches played privately.

[lamford]

So you haven't yet discovered Law 16D?

Two issues here. Law 16D states:

"When a player accidentally receives extraneous 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; snip>, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information."

 

One would hope that the Lawmakers put in "accidentally", "calls", "cards" and "result" intentionally. Firstly, the player has deliberately looked to see who the declarer was when the board was previously played. Secondly, the Lawmakers used "calls", "results" and "cards". If they had intended the information as to who was declarer at the other table to be extraneous, they could have written "seeing or hearing anything about the previous action on that board." The assumption must therefore be that deliberately noting who the declarer was at the previous table is permitted, and AI, but any knowledge of the hand or the result is extraneous and UI. If they had intended "deliberately" receiving extraneous information to be an infraction, they would not have included the word "accidentally". The reductio ad absurdum, if you think that the information about who the declarer was in the previous round is UI, is that all players should call the TD in all subsequent rounds after the first, to indicate that they have extraneous information about who the declarer was on this board on the previous round. The TD would then have to award, say, 24 artificial adjusted scores each round, treating all players as non-offenders, so, 60-60 in practice. The club would also have to erect screens between tables to prevent this extraneous UI being transmitted.

 

Barmar is very keen on making the (often unwarranted) assumption that words in the Laws are there for a purpose, rather than there because of sloppy drafting. On this occasion, I agree with him! However, "accidentally" should still be deleted from 16D, of course.

[pran]

Two issues here. Law 16D states:

"When a player accidentally receives extraneous 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; snip>, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information."

 

One would hope that the Lawmakers put in "accidentally", "calls", "cards" and "result" intentionally. Firstly, the player has deliberately looked to see who the declarer was when the board was previously played. Secondly, the Lawmakers used "calls", "results" and "cards". If they had intended the information as to who was declarer at the other table to be extraneous, they could have written "seeing or hearing anything about the previous action on that board." The assumption must therefore be that deliberately noting who the declarer was at the previous table is permitted, and AI, but any knowledge of the hand or the result is extraneous and UI. If they had intended "deliberately" receiving extraneous information to be an infraction, they would not have included the word "accidentally". The reductio ad absurdum, if you think that the information about who the declarer was in the previous round is UI, is that all players should call the TD in all subsequent rounds after the first, to indicate that they have extraneous information about who the declarer was on this board on the previous round. The TD would then have to award, say, 24 artificial adjusted scores each round, treating all players as non-offenders, so, 60-60 in practice. The club would also have to erect screens between tables to prevent this extraneous UI being transmitted.

 

Barmar is very keen on making the (often unwarranted) assumption that words in the Laws are there for a purpose, rather than there because of sloppy drafting. On this occasion, I agree with him! However, "accidentally" should still be deleted from 16D, of course.

In my world the composition "as by" is (more or less) equivalent to "for example" and implies "but not limited to".

 

I consider any information whatsoever from another table about a board under play or yet to be be played as extraneous and find full support for this view in Law 16D.

 

If a player deliberately (rather than accidentally) obtains such information I shall stand ready to apply Law 91 at its full force as I consider such action contempt of the game.

 

Please clarify why a player who is about to play a board that has already been played at another table should have any reason to know details about that board (from such previous play) before his own play is completed?

 

"Accidentally" is there for the simple reason that the laws assume bridge players to be honorable persons for which deliberate cheating is unthinkable. Thus there is no reason to even suspect that any player will deliberately attempt to obtain extraneous information.

[barmar]

"Accidentally" is there for the simple reason that the laws assume bridge players to be honorable persons for which deliberate cheating is unthinkable. Thus there is no reason to even suspect that any player will deliberately attempt to obtain extraneous information.

Exactly.

 

The Laws in general avoid addressing deliberate cheating. It's not something that TDs generally deal with at the time of the incident, it's handled by higher level regulating bodies with conduct and ethics committees.

[sanst]

There is Law 74C5, too: “The following are examples of violations of procedure ... looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player’s hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card.”

[lamford]

If a player deliberately (rather than accidentally) obtains such information I shall stand ready to apply Law 91 at its full force as I consider such action contempt of the game.

 

"Accidentally" is there for the simple reason that the laws assume bridge players to be honorable persons for which deliberate cheating is unthinkable. Thus there is no reason to even suspect that any player will deliberately attempt to obtain extraneous information.

If you applied Law 91 to some action which is not an infraction, either by applying a PP or by disqualification, you might win at the AC, but you would lose in the CAS. After all they known nothing about bridge, but do understand legalese after a fashion ...

 

Suppose someone arrives from another planet and wants to know what information they are allowed to use to play better. They will read the Laws. I don't accept that "as by" means "not restricted to". Government "as by a father over his children" is interpreted as "government such as that exercised by a father over his children" or ... "government similar to that exercised by a father over his children" (a case in the family court). So "as by" in this sense requires "similar to". The list of types of knives which cannot be carried in public includes things like ceremonial swords, butcher's cleavers, etc, but that does not mean that a pencil sharpener is not allowed. Law 16D lists "cards", "result" etc, matters relating entirely to the bidding and play. Information which can be gleaned by observation, such as who was at the table, who they were playing, which board number they were playing, how long they took, etc, is not of the same type as the "cards", "remarks", "bidding" and "play". So, the auction, play, opening lead, result, whether the contract could have been defeated and any cards possessed by any player, whether there were any finesses that worked, what the chance of success was" etc, are all extraneous. But other information not of that type is allowed. I would agree that one should just conclude that "accidentally" was "accidentally" included in Law 16D, and rule that the "law is an ass", as Denning said. I do think it should be deleted next time, however! That does NOT mean that who declarer was is in the same group of extraneous information. It is visible to the players, and no attempt is made to conceal it.

 

Let us say that you have just made 6NT on a squeeze. You ask your friend and rival, Garozzo, whether he did the same when he played the hand (you have now both played the board). He says that the opponents found the only lead to break it up. You now know that you are 4% clear of Garozzo on that board. This information is extraneous, but it is not about a board you are about to play, so is not classed as UI. There is a reason for the laws specifying "a board you are yet to play" making it absolutely clear that information about a board that "you have played" is AI.

 

There is no reason whatsoever for "accidentally" which is verbosity for no purpose.

[lamford]

There is Law 74C5, too: “The following are examples of violations of procedure ... looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player’s hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card.”

The assumption there is that this refers to the auction and play at the current table! And "as for the purpose of seeing his cards" is completely different to "as for the purpose of deciding who the declarer is at another table". Are you saying that you cannot look intently to see who will be arriving at your table in the last round, or who you still have to play in the last two rounds of a qualifying event?

[pran]

If you applied Law 91 to some action which is not an infraction, either by applying a PP or by disqualification, you might win at the AC, but you would lose in the CAS. After all they known nothing about bridge, but do understand legalese after a fashion ...

I wouldn't care - and I would refuse any relation with such people.

And I feel quite convinced that following a proper report to my organisation they would ban such people from any event under their jurisdiction.

 

This discussion is ridiculous.

[PeterAlan]

… the "law is an ass", as Denning said.

Mr Bumble in 'Oliver Twist'. Lord Denning certainly took that view from time to time, but I couldn't quickly find an example of where he actually quoted Dickens in this way.

[barmar]

Suppose someone arrives from another planet and wants to know what information they are allowed to use to play better. They will read the Laws

Like it or not, there are some unwritten rules that everyone just knows based on common sense about most games. Any effort to glean information about the hands through other than legal calls and plays is obviously wrong.

 

I don't think there's anything in the Laws that says you're not allowed to get a copy of the hand record before the game. Yet we all know that this would be the most serious breach of the game, even worse than collusive cheating (which is prohibited by the law that specifies legal communication between partners). Also, the Law that restricts communication between partners says nothing about communication between teammates, yet we know that's also verboten.

 

These things just make a sham of the game, we don't need specific laws to tell us that they're prohibited. The Laws aren't written for the benefit of Martians who don't understand the fundamentals of human games.