[bluejak]

The wording is

Quote

by ... seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins

So it is not unauthorised to see it after the auction begins, and Law 16C3 is irrelevant.

[suprgrover]

bluejak, on Oct 21 2009, 07:31 AM, said:

The wording is

Quote

by ... seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins

So it is not unauthorised to see it after the auction begins, and Law 16C3 is irrelevant.

Ah. The instruction in 16C3 had me thinking it trumped that phrase. I knew that TDs generally did not regard cards innocently seen in others' hands during the play as unauthorized information, but looking too quickly at 16C1 and 16C3 had me doubting myself.

[bluejak]

I do not think so. It lists some UI and then says "such UI". I do not believe that changes the UI listed because the word "such" suggests it does not.

[barmar]

suprgrover, on Oct 21 2009, 02:19 PM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 21 2009, 07:31 AM, said:

The wording is

Quote

by ... seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins

So it is not unauthorised to see it after the auction begins, and Law 16C3 is irrelevant.

Ah. The instruction in 16C3 had me thinking it trumped that phrase. I knew that TDs generally did not regard cards innocently seen in others' hands during the play as unauthorized information, but looking too quickly at 16C1 and 16C3 had me doubting myself.

I had to read that law over and over before I made my post regarding it. It's definitely confusing the way they organized it.

But I couldn't imagine that the lawgivers would really condone seeing an opponent's cards just because it's after the auction has begun. So the distinction must be in the allowable rectifications, not whether the information is extraneous.

[barmar]

Jlall, on Oct 20 2009, 06:47 PM, said:

Completely inappropriate to call the director and accuse the opps of looking at your hand. If someone does this they should get a procedural penalty and a conduct hearing. You can't accuse people of stuff like this with no proof. I am a big believer in that, and as far as I know it WILL get you a conduct hearing in the ACBL.

What kind of "proof" is expected, other than "I saw it with my own eyes"? If you happen to be playing in an event that's being video recorded then there's independent evidence.

Or are you saying that if you want to accuse someone of cheating, you shouldn't do it by calling the TD at the time, but instead should wait until later and file a recorder form? But if you think that it's interfering with normal play of the hand, isn't it appropriate to call the TD for a ruling? Should you just say that you think the opp saw your hand, without including that you think they did it intentionally?

[barmar]

suprgrover, on Oct 20 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

barmar, on Oct 20 2009, 04:49 PM, said:

Law 16C describes extraneous information received accidentally, and includes "seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table."

What do we mean by accidentally here? Certainly if a player exposes a card because it was boxed by another player, that is an accident. But is it an accident to expose cards by not holding them close enough to one's chest?

If it's not intentional, it's accidental. As long as the other player didn't have to go out of his way to se the card, I presume his seeing it is accidental.

Exposing your hand when claiming or conceding is not accidental. But not holding your cards properly, so that the opponent can inadvertently see them, is accidental on both players' parts.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Oct 19 2009, 05:50 PM, said:

The defenders think it's illegal for declarer to make an anti-percentage play?

It is if your name is Buratti.

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on Oct 22 2009, 12:47 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 19 2009, 05:50 PM, said:

The defenders think it's illegal for declarer to make an anti-percentage play?

It is if your name is Buratti.

LOL

Rik