A retarded rabbit

[pescetom]

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.

 

Google sustains that 'the law is an ass' is from a play published by the English dramatist George Chapman in 1654 - Revenge for Honour:

Ere he shall lose an eye for such a trifle... For doing deeds of nature! I'm ashamed. The law is such an ass.

[pescetom]

"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.

 

Nevertheless we have screens, an obligation to shuffle the cards after play, telephone bans, explicit mention in the laws of behaviour such as looking at the position of a card in opponent's hand, etc.

Do you wonder why?

[lamford]

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.

I see pescetom has given the correct origin.

However, my late father, an LLB, did find some examples of Denning saying this in court.

[lamford]

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.

What is ridiculous is giving a PP or disqualification without there being an infraction - as the Laws are written. I think DavidBurn once wrote that no disapprobation should apply to anyone following the laws to the letter, not even to SB.

[lamford]

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.

You are trying to defend the WBFLC for the ludicrous inclusion of the (extra unnecessary) word "accidentally". What happened to your previous stance that we should assume that words are there for a purpose? You are completely inconsistent. As the laws are written, accidentally overhearing that slam makes on the previous board is a breach of Law 16D (if you don't tell the TD), but deliberately looking at all four hands is permitted! And I would, as TD, rule that the law was wrong if it occurred, and risk an appeal. A EBU magazine indicated that a member had been suspended for pre-knowledge of the hands, yet it is not clear which Law he broke. In an EBU event, all the competitors were sent the hand records for a session in advance, and the EBU did not cancel those boards, although several competitors pointed out that they had been seen. I think that this comes under accidentally, but surely "deliberately" is more heinous still, which makes it very peculiar that the WBFLC should have sought to stress "accidentally".

[sanst]

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?

Oh, now there is an assumption in the laws. Stop bending the text to your needs. This whole discussion is ridicoulous as pran wrote. But you make it even worse by stating that we should take the text literally, but not if you need an assumption to prove your point.

[blackshoe]

Like it or not, there are some unwritten rules that everyone just knows based on common sense about most games.

If 'everyone knows' such-and-such, then it ain't so.

[lamford]

Oh, now there is an assumption in the laws. Stop bending the text to your needs. This whole discussion is ridiculous as pran wrote. But you make it even worse by stating that we should take the text literally, but not if you need an assumption to prove your point.

If you don't make some assumptions you get nonsense. Take 39A:

All calls after the final pass of the auction are cancelled.

 

That should read: All calls on that board after the final pass of the auction are cancelled. Or to be more precise, All calls on that board after the final legal pass of the auction are cancelled. Otherwise 1NT-Pass-Pass-Pass-1S-Pass-4S-Pass-Pass-Pass would stand as there were no calls after the final pass!

 

"Accidentally" does not require such assumptions for interpretation. Your fault is in assuming that the literal meaning is wrong.

[pescetom]

Like it or not, there are some unwritten rules that everyone just knows based on common sense about most games.

 

Relatively few, and often they contradict the written rules so one follows them at his own peril.

For example in soccer it is widely considered appropriate to intentionally kick the ball out of play when it looks as if a player may be injured and the referee has not stopped play. But if the referee signals the infraction without heeding the presumed injury and and the other team quickly resumes play and scores a goal, then the goal stands.

Quite probably, soccer has an effective process in place whereby the rules are reviewed and if necessary modified in the light of recurring controversies or evident gaps.

Bridge seems to have no such effective process, just an inconclusive self-referential discussion every four years.

[pran]

Relatively few, and often they contradict the written rules so one follows them at his own peril.

For example in soccer it is widely considered appropriate to intentionally kick the ball out of play when it looks as if a player may be injured and the referee has not stopped play. But if the referee signals the infraction without heeding the presumed injury and and the other team quickly resumes play and scores a goal, then the goal stands.

Quite probably, soccer has an effective process in place whereby the rules are reviewed and if necessary modified in the light of recurring controversies or evident gaps.

Bridge seems to have no such effective process, just an inconclusive self-referential discussion every four years.

four???

[barmar]

Heinlein is simply wrong. It's contradicted by the simple fact that we can have conversations, since "everyone knows" the meaning of the words we all use.

 

Another example: Everyone knows OJ did it. The police simply couldn't prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

[lamford]

Heinlein is simply wrong. It's contradicted by the simple fact that we can have conversations, since "everyone knows" the meaning of the words we all use.

 

Another example: Everyone knows OJ did it. The police simply couldn't prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

Every mathematician "knows" that the Goldbach Conjecture is true, that every even integer greater than two is the sum of two prime numbers. But mathematicians have never been able to prove it, so that it remains a "conjecture". You have a "conjecture" that "deliberately looking at the hands before play" is cheating. The game is governed by laws, and no law prevents this, so it is just "conjecture".

[barmar]

Every mathematician "knows" that the Goldbach Conjecture is true, that every even integer greater than two is the sum of two prime numbers. But mathematicians have never been able to prove it, so that it remains a "conjecture". You have a "conjecture" that "deliberately looking at the hands before play" is cheating. The game is governed by laws, and no law prevents this, so it is just "conjecture".

This is actually a useful analogy.

 

Mathematics is a very special field, where rigorous proofs are necessary. If it's not proven, it's still suspect.

 

The rest of life is not so black and white, and we don't depend on absolute proofs. We send people to prison and even impose the death penalty based on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", and civil lawsuits are decided on "preponderance of the evidence".

 

In science we make hypotheses, and then do experiments to see if they confirm or refute the hypothesis. The more experiments that confirm it, the more we believe it's true. Statements can even be "mostly true" -- Newton's laws of motion are close enough to truth in the range of speeds and gravitational force that we encounter in daily life, we only need to worry about Einstein's laws or relativity in more extreme circumstances. Scientists never prove anything absolutely, but the fact that all our devices work is strong confirmation that we understand most of the laws of nature (when things fail it's almost always due to implementation failures, not misunderstanding the underlying principles).

 

And the use of natural languages is even less strict. We learn what words mean, and what all the unspoken implications are from the way they're used, by induction from living in a society of speakers and writers. There are few written rules (the ones we're taught in grade school are mainly just general guidelines), yet almost all of us figure out how things work (the ones who don't are often diagnosed with some cognitive defect, such as autism). A foreigner armed with a translation dictionary would be almost hopelessly lost in all but the simplest conversations ("Ou est le biblioteque?"), and a Martian would be have even more trouble. There's nuance galore from the choice of words and grammar, but you'll never find these details in a dictionary.

 

Laws, both in games and in real life, are written in human languages, so the issues I mentioned in that last paragraph apply. It would be great if they could be written consistently and unambiguously, but that's simply not the nature of language. They need to be understood in context, and occasionally we have to resort to the "spirit" of the laws.

[lamford]

There's nuance galore from the choice of words and grammar, but you'll never find these details in a dictionary.

There is no nuance or ambiguity whatsoever in the use of the word "accidentally" in 16D, and if you banned someone for "deliberately" obtaining UI from another table, this would be overturned by a court. I have had four speeding tickets cancelled on technicalities. One speed limit was in a round border instead of a square border and no variation was permitted. One "Gatso" had a gap of 3 years and 1 month in its calibration record, one month over the limit. Another "NIP" was not sent in good time (it was wrongly sent to the previous owner) and for a fourth they did not or could not provide a photograph. If we don't apply unambiguous laws honestly and fairly, then rulings will be overturned on appeal. The example in 16D is a pretty ridiculous error by the WBFLC, but hey, what's new?

 

In my supervised play group for beginners, I usually prepared set hands which I had obviously seen in advance. Often there was an odd number of players, and I played to ensure everyone had a game. I did not breach Law 16D, because I "deliberately" looked at the hands before play - in fact I prepared them.

[blackshoe]

You know, the purpose of these forums is primarily to provide aid to directors and players who are unsure of a ruling. These esoteric discussions about … whatever it is they're about, I'm not sure, don't seem to further that end. Not telling everybody to shut up — yet. Just… consider where you want to go with this discussion. B-)

[pran]

In my supervised play group for beginners, I usually prepared set hands which I had obviously seen in advance. Often there was an odd number of players, and I played to ensure everyone had a game. I did not breach Law 16D, because I "deliberately" looked at the hands before play - in fact I prepared them.

May we please be excused from this nonsense?

I hope you are aware of

Unless the purpose of the tournament is the replay of past deals no result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck or if the deal has been imported from a different session. . . . . .

(my enhancement)

This makes the procedure you describe perfectly legal and Law 16D is most certainly no objection. The fact that your actions here are deliberate is completely irrelevant.

[barmar]

In my supervised play group for beginners, I usually prepared set hands which I had obviously seen in advance. Often there was an odd number of players, and I played to ensure everyone had a game. I did not breach Law 16D, because I "deliberately" looked at the hands before play - in fact I prepared them.

Supervised play like this is generally not considered "real bridge" and routinely violates many of the laws. Players consult their notes or ask for assistance from the teacher, sometimes the game is played with all the cards visible, many irregularities are ignored (would you penalize a student if their question could be overheard by the other players?). Do you even keep score in a game with prepared hands like this? There's little point in using it as an example in a discussion about how to enforce the laws.

[lamford]

Supervised play like this is generally not considered "real bridge" and routinely violates many of the laws. Players consult their notes or ask for assistance from the teacher, sometimes the game is played with all the cards visible, many irregularities are ignored (would you penalize a student if their question could be overheard by the other players?). Do you even keep score in a game with prepared hands like this? There's little point in using it as an example in a discussion about how to enforce the laws.

It seems that I was taken seriously regarding the beginner's class. Perhaps I should add "(joke)" at the end of any parts of any posts which are in jest. We do though have a serious and important issue as to whether who the declarer was at the previous table is AI or UI. Weejonnie seems to concur that it is AI, but others would "send the miscreants packing". I think people using this information are just taking into account the "traits of the opponents" as to who plays slowly or quickly, and the conclusion that RR must have been declarer is a valid one, especially if he could not have been declarer on the first of the two-board rounds and the second board arrived late. And we do have a word that was accidentally included in the laws in 2017, which should be deleted in 2027, unless some think it should remain.

[weejonnie]

It seems that I was taken seriously regarding the beginner's class. Perhaps I should add "(joke)" at the end of any parts of any posts which are in jest. We do though have a serious and important issue as to whether who the declarer was at the previous table is AI or UI. Weejonnie seems to concur that it is AI, but others would "send the miscreants packing". I think people using this information are just taking into account the "traits of the opponents" as to who plays slowly or quickly, and the conclusion that RR must have been declarer is a valid one, especially if he could not have been declarer on the first of the two-board rounds and the second board arrived late. And we do have a word that was accidentally included in the laws in 2017, which should be deleted in 2027, unless some think it should remain.

We have a law that was 'accidentally' included in the 2017 laws and which should be deleted in 2027 : Law 15B

[pran]

It seems that I was taken seriously regarding the beginner's class. Perhaps I should add "(joke)" at the end of any parts of any posts which are in jest. We do though have a serious and important issue as to whether who the declarer was at the previous table is AI or UI. Weejonnie seems to concur that it is AI, but others would "send the miscreants packing". I think people using this information are just taking into account the "traits of the opponents" as to who plays slowly or quickly, and the conclusion that RR must have been declarer is a valid one, especially if he could not have been declarer on the first of the two-board rounds and the second board arrived late. And we do have a word that was accidentally included in the laws in 2017, which should be deleted in 2027, unless some think it should remain.

Would you please care to elaborate which "word" you are referring to and where in the laws this word was included in the 2017 laws?

 

 

We have a law that was 'accidentally' included in the 2017 laws and which should be deleted in 2027 : Law 15B

No. Law 15 actually covers two separate issues:

 

Law 15A applies in the (rare) case when a player is holding cards that he has picked up from a wrong board while the other players have taken their cards from the correct board. Thus this law involves two different boards.

 

Law 15B applies when a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round, thus involving one (but incorrect) board only.

[lamford]

Would you please care to elaborate which "word" you are referring to and where in the laws this word was included in the 2017 laws?

The word "accidentally" in Law 16D is not necessary and adds nothing; in fact it detracts. And I don't know how long it has been there; it was certainly in Law 16C in 2007. You might know when it was introduced.

[pran]

The word "accidentally" in Law 16D is not necessary and adds nothing; in fact it detracts. And I don't know how long it has been there; it was certainly in Law 16C in 2007. You might know when it was introduced.

Is 1933 (The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge as adopted by The United States Bridge Association, also approved by The American Bridge League and The American Whist League) early enough for you?

(The first internationally adopted laws were agreed upon in 1936.)

 

They all included phrases equivalent to "accidentally" in Law 16D

 

The purpose is (obviously) to distinguish between accidental happenstances and deliberate activities, considering deliberate activities unthinkable for honest players.

[sanst]

The purpose is (obviously) to distinguish between accidental happenstances and deliberate activities, considering deliberate activities unthinkable for honest players.

That might be so, and I never doubt honesty without proof to the contrary, but, as lamford wrote, ‘accidentally’ doesn’t add anything and we all think that you shouldn’t use any previous information about a board you still have to play.

[pran]

That might be so, and I never doubt honesty without proof to the contrary, but, as lamford wrote, ‘accidentally’ doesn’t add anything and we all think that you shouldn’t use any previous information about a board you still have to play.

Honestly (!) I have a BIG problem understanding why the word "accidentally" should be removed. Will a removal improve the law in any way?

[sanst]

Honestly (!) I have a BIG problem understanding why the word "accidentally" should be removed. Will a removal improve the law in any way?

Does it add anything? If so, what? If not, get rid of it for clarity’s sake. I’ve been an editor in my time and from professional experience can tell you that a text usually gets better understandable if superfluous words are removed. In literature that can be quite different, but not in the laws.