[wank]

Law 66 exists to regulate when information from the play of the cards is available. THe offending side circumvented this regulation and made available/sought information to which they weren't entitled. That's UI.

[Grazy69]

Pran was correct in his 1st reply .. and it is straight forward.

Many posters on this forum are infamous for dis-appearing down unnecessary cul-de-sacs and this post is no different.

Happy New Year

[hotShot]

pran, on Dec 31 2009, 01:36 PM, said:

The player had apparently forgotten the (authorized) information he had from partner's play so he asks to see the card again.

This is speculation, he could have been just a little unsure.

To me Cascades suggestion: §66C => §84D => §12

Seems more plausible.

[pran]

hotShot, on Dec 31 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

pran, on Dec 31 2009, 01:36 PM, said:

The player had apparently forgotten the (authorized) information he had from partner's play so he asks to see the card again.

This is speculation, he could have been just a little unsure.

To me Cascades suggestion: §66C => §84D => §12

Seems more plausible.

From the original post:

All four players turn their cards down. The defender who won the trick has forgotten what his partner played so asks to see it. Contrary to Law, his partner turns his card face up. He now plays the correct card to the next trick.

Speculation?

[hotShot]

If it does not say: "The player stated that he had forgotten ..."

My experience tells me that statements like:

Quote

... The defender who won the trick has forgotten what his partner played...

are not necessarily established facts.

[pran]

hotShot, on Dec 31 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

If it does not say: "The player stated that he had forgotten ..."

My experience tells me that statements like:

Quote

... The defender who won the trick has forgotten what his partner played...

are not necessarily established facts.

We do not need proven facts for a ruling like this. The illegal actions speak for themselves and the probable fact is that the player requesting to see the card does so in order to obtain information to which he is not entitled. Whether he has completely forgotten (i.e. overlooked) or is just unsure of what card was played is immaterial.

Even if he afterwards claims that he wasn't unsure at all he will have to make up a convincing story for why he wanted to see the card if it wasn't to reassure himself of which card it was. And this is sufficient to rule UI on that information.

[mamos]

If I say to partner "What suit should I lead?" and he says "Heart" thats bad and if I lead a Heart thats a violation of Law 16B. It seems to me to that Sven is completely correct.

Happy New Year (and yes sounds like Reveley to me)

Mike

[bluejak]

Ok, a few sensible arguments now, though I find none convincing. Yes, when we ruled we knew it would be Reveley if we ruled under Law 16. I deliberately did not tell you how we ruled since I was going to present the problem later, but unfortunately Matthew seems to have scotched that idea.

The basic point is that while people have strong views, no-one has really given me any reason I can believe why the opposite view is wrong.

To summarise, a player asks to see the last trick when it is too late to do so. No problem of course if an opponent turns his card up, but the question is what to do when partner turns his card up.

Now, one way of looking at it is that the information from that card is authorised. However, the player has presumably forgotten it [or maybe is just not sure] and the only reason he gets to see it again is that his side breaches Law 66C. That Law gives no penalty, which is the basis for Law 12A1, so we adjust under Law 12A1.

Another way of looking it is that since the information which may have been forgotten comes from partner illegally it must be unauthorised. That makes it a Law 16B case, which leads straight to Law 12C without Law 12A1, and brings Reveley into play.

Now for an argument to be convincing it really needs to explain why one of those two approaches is wrong. Most arguments so far have just basically said one way or the other way seems obvious, but that hardly convinces.

Me personally? I would rule under Law 66C and thus 12A1, no Reveley. Why? Because when I look at the list of things unauthorised in Law 16B1A none of them seem of this type. When there is a Law which says an action by a player is wrong, that Law seems to me to be self-sufficient, either giving a rectification or leading to Law 12A1 or 90 as suitable.

But while this seems right to me, it is not a strong argument, and I was hoping someone would produce a more convincing argument, not just what feels right. After all, I advised Matthew to use Law 66C and Law 12A1 because it felt right.

[peachy]

Asking to see the card and the partner showing it is just the same as if he asked "What card did you play to the last trick?" and the partner answering that question. Such exchange of information is not legal and surely there is no question about that, nor that the showing of the card after the trick has been completed is UI.

I would want to make sure they do not gain from the infraction even if the infraction is judged only to be "illegally inspecting a trick that has been completed" instead of "wanting to see what partner signalled, after forgetting to look when the trick was in process".

[Cascade]

As a matter of general principle the specific should take precedence over the general. In this case the specific law 66 regarding quitting ones tricks takes precedence over the more general unauthorized information.

My reading of L12 doesn't allow us to avoid L12C. L12A just says that the director is allowed to adjust scores in certain circumstances. L12C outlines the correct procedure when assigning the adjusted score.

I don't think the L66 route is a way to avoid a Reveley ruling. Perhaps the problem is with the logic of disallowing a Reveley ruling.

[pran]

bluejak, on Jan 1 2010, 02:57 AM, said:

I would rule under Law 66C and thus 12A1, no Reveley.  Why?  Because when I look at the list of things unauthorised in Law 16B1A none of them seem of this type. 

The list of things unauthorized is not complete, the laws specifically say "as for example" (Law 16B1) or "such as" (Law 73C).

Laws 16A1 and 16A2 list what information is authorized for a player and Law 16A3 explicitly states that any information not included in this list is extraneous and unauthorized.

Information derived from partner illegally exposing one of his played cards is not included in the list of authorized information. Therefore it is unauthorized, and the path from Law 66C to Law 16B (when partner is the offender of Law 66C) is clear.

And please excuse my ignorance: What is a Reveley ruling?

[hotShot]

The existence of Law 66C shows that the case in question was considered when writing down the laws. But the case is not listed as an example of UI in Law 16A and there is no reference of UI in Law 66C.
I would consider this as intentional and assume that it was not intended to handle this using Law 16A.

[wank]

pran, on Jan 1 2010, 05:58 AM, said:

And please excuse my ignorance: What is a Reveley ruling?

When you erronenously include in your weighted ruling the result obtained from the action you're disallowing on the grounds that it was suggested by the UI over a LA.

[bluejak]

peachy, on Jan 1 2010, 04:28 AM, said:

Asking to see the card and the partner showing it is just the same as if he asked "What card did you play to the last trick?" and the partner answering that question.  Such exchange of information is not legal and surely there is no question about that, nor that the showing of the card after the trick has been completed is UI.

The trouble is that it isn't. For example, if you were playing rubber bridge, or duplicate bridge under an earlier Law book, it is (was) perfectly legal to ask to see the last trick, but it is (was) never legal to ask partner to tell you what he played.

[blackshoe]

peachy, on Dec 31 2009, 10:28 PM, said:

nor that the showing of the card after the trick has been completed is UI.

<pedant>The showing of the card is not UI, because it is not I. The I is the information that the actual card transmits, given the partnership's defensive agreements. Yes, this I is U — that's why it's important in UI cases to properly determine the I, as it affects the determination of LAs, if you're ruling on the basis of UI.</pedant>

You probably know that, peachy, but others reading this thread may not.

Edit: didn't see David's post.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Jan 1 2010, 01:57 AM, said:

To summarise, a player asks to see the last trick when it is too late to do so. No problem of course if an opponent turns his card up, but the question is what to do when partner turns his card up.

Now, one way of looking at it is that the information from that card is authorised. However, the player has presumably forgotten it [or maybe is just not sure] and the only reason he gets to see it again is that his side breaches Law 66C. That Law gives no penalty, which is the basis for Law 12A1, so we adjust under Law 12A1.

Another way of looking it is that since the information which may have been forgotten comes from partner illegally it must be unauthorised. That makes it a Law 16B case, which leads straight to Law 12C without Law 12A1, and brings Reveley into play.

Now for an argument to be convincing it really needs to explain why one of those two approaches is wrong. Most arguments so far have just basically said one way or the other way seems obvious, but that hardly convinces.

In my view, only the second approach is correct.

The problem with the reasoning of the first approach is that the information from the display of the defender's card is only authorised in the time period between its initial play as provided by Law 45A and the completion of the trick as defined by Law 65A.

Any subsequent exposure of the card by partner provides unauthorised information.

Although there has been a breach of Law 66C, the breach of this Law has not in itself caused any damage. The potential damage only occurred if the partner was deemed to have not complied with Law 16B and/or Law 73 at a later trick.

[duschek]

pran, on Jan 1 2010, 05:58 AM, said:

The list of things unauthorized is not complete, the laws specifically say "as for example" (Law 16B1) or "such as" (Law 73C).

Exactly.

jallerton, on Jan 1 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

Although there has been a breach of Law 66C, the breach of this Law has not in itself caused any damage.  The potential damage only occurred if the partner was deemed to have not complied with Law 16B and/or Law 73 at a later trick.

Exactly.

[mamos]

It seems to me that Jeffrey's approach is correct. Lots of UI could have been AI if I remembered it. I'm allowed to know what conventions we play, but if I forget and your alert or explanation alerts me that's still UI.

I don't really understand Blakjak's problem here, I'm not convinced by any any of the other arguments. Partner's action (showing the card) produced UI, suggested I choose a particular card. It's an infraction to show that card. Sure there was an infraction of 66, but that in itself is no big deal (I bet there were other occasions during the Tournament when this Law was infringed and the Td was not called). The infraction which caused damage was the breach of 16B, when an illegal choice was made following UI. Apply the Law
Simple
Mike