[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2018-October-06, 07:19, said:

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]

pran, on 2018-October-06, 02:16, said:

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]

lamford, on 2018-October-08, 05:34, said:

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]

pran, on 2018-October-08, 16:45, said:

"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]

pran, on 2018-October-08, 16:45, said:

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]

sanst, on 2018-October-09, 00:49, said:

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]

lamford, on 2018-October-09, 05:10, said:

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]

lamford, on 2018-October-09, 05:10, said:

… 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]

lamford, on 2018-October-09, 05:10, said:

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.

[pescetom]

PeterAlan, on 2018-October-09, 07:49, 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.

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]

pran, on 2018-October-08, 16:45, said:

"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]

PeterAlan, on 2018-October-09, 07:49, 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.

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]

pran, on 2018-October-09, 06:47, said:

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]

barmar, on 2018-October-09, 09:08, said:

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]

lamford, on 2018-October-09, 05:16, said:

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]

barmar, on 2018-October-09, 09:08, said:

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

R.A. Heinlein said:

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

[lamford]

sanst, on 2018-October-09, 11:31, said:

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]

barmar, on 2018-October-09, 09:08, said:

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]

pescetom, on 2018-October-10, 04:32, said:

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???