[lamford]

blackshoe, on Sep 23 2010, 04:58 PM, said:

That said, at least a warning would be appropriate, and if the miscreant should have known better through experience, then a PP — but I think 20 times the "normal" PP is a bit much.

I think Axman might have intended a standard PP on each of the two boards "affected", but I may be wrong.

[bluejak]

Well axman did seem to think that a fairly minor infraction was the worst crime in bridge.

It isn't. It is a game which leads to discussion between partners. It is normal, and while of course it should not be loud enough for others to hear, that is no worse than putting twelve cards in one hand and fourteen in another.

[dburn]

lamford, on Sep 20 2010, 05:54 AM, said:

dburn, on Sep 19 2010, 07:17 PM, said:

Thus, in times gone by "information" was merely that upon which someone acted - it did not matter at all whether the basis of the action was factual.

I can quite easily accept your interpretation of the word "information" and decide that the opening leader does have "unauthorised information". However, the phrase "about a board he is playing or has yet to play" seems very specific and whatever information he had did not fall into that category. If you overheard someone say "you should sacrifice, non vulnerable" and you thought a board being passed to you was that one, but it was actually one you had already played, would you penalise someone who successfully ventured a non-vulnerable sacrifice?

Yes, of course. That which "informed" (in the archaic sense) his action was extraneous; the fact that the "information" (in the contemporary sense) did not relate to the board he was actually playing does not matter.

Suppose that a player X is considering his opening lead on the final board (24 at his table) of a pairs tournament, and suppose that he hears someone remark "you should lead the ace of spades". Believing this remark to be addressed surreptitiouly to him by some well-wisher, he leads the ace of spades, and that defeats the contract while some other logically alternative lead would not have done.

But the remark was not addressed to X - some fellow who had already played all the boards was telling his partner as they left the room what she should have done on board 17.

Has X acted illegally? Yes, of course he has - he has allowed his choice of action from among logical alternatives to be extraneously "informed". That the datum "you should lead the ace of spades" had no bearing on board 24 is irrelevant; X has treated it as "information" by permitting it to "inform" his choice of play, and he is therefore in breach of Law 16A3 (and some others).

You seem to me to be hung up on the notion that information about board 17 cannot be held to be information about board 24. You should not be; it is true that data about board 17 is (or, for the purists among us, are) not data about board 24, but as I have attempted to show (and as you appear to me to have accepted), that which informs our actions does not have to be a datum, let alone a fact.

In short, as Robin may or may not have said a long while ago, Law 16A3 applies to this player's actions even though Law 16C1 does not apply to the "information" he has received. The score should be adjusted accordingly, despite the views of BLML (or perhaps because of them, although Eric Landau still talks a great deal of sense and Herman de Wael still talks).

[lamford]

dburn, on Sep 23 2010, 09:39 PM, said:

You seem to me to be hung up on the notion that information about board 17 cannot be held to be information about board 24. You should not be; it is true that data about board 17 is (or, for the purists among us, are) not data about board 24, but as I have attempted to show (and as you appear to me to have accepted), that which informs our actions does not have to be a datum, let alone a fact.

Your point of view is one interpretation of information. And I agree that it does not have to be a fact. However, a player may use it if

"a) 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 fact that raising 1NT to 3NT with a (4 3)-3-3 hand worked twice so far this session, clearly allows him to try this again, as it is "extraneous" but clearly not "information about a board he is playing or yet to play", but about a board that he has played. Here, he knows the information is about a board he has played, but the Laws do not differentiate between the two types of information.

In our example, the information might be about any board, or, for that matter, any event; the player mistakenly thinks it is about the board he is playing. "Computer-dealt hands produce more singletons" is somebody's comment about some board or other, which the player overhears. The player, after the tea-break, successfully finesses a queen when holding nine trumps, for that reason, which, it transpired, was completely unrelated to this board, or to this issue, and, in fact, about a board he had already played. "About a board" surely means "concerning a specific board where a comment was made". When a player informs the TD that he has overheard a remark, the TD will only take action on the board where the remark is made. Indeed the procedure spelled out clearly relates only to the board affected, and not to any other boards. 16C2 and 16C3 do not state so, but it is implied that the action is taken on that board only. Law 39A states: "All calls after the final pass of the auction are cancelled." It is implied that this means "on that board".

So, your interpretation that information about board 24 in event A, or board 24 in event B, cannot be used by the player to guide his selection on board 17 in event A is not automatic. Which Law precludes his use of this information? Common sense does, especially if it is an attempt to cheat, and I totally agree that such behaviour should be discouraged. But I am not convinced by your argument that the information is necessarily unauthorised, within the meaning of any Laws. Nor am I convinced that "about a board he is playing or yet to play" really means "about a board he thinks he is playing or thinks he is yet to play".

We are not disagreeing about what is ethically correct. We disagree as to whether the Laws are adequate to deal with the "violation". They are, under 12A1, if we decide there has been a violation.