[blackshoe]

I do not think Law 23 applies here. I am surprised that everyone seems to be ignoring Law 72B1.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on Sep 15 2010, 07:49 PM, said:

I do not think Law 23 applies here. I am surprised that everyone seems to be ignoring Law 72B1.

I agree that he infringed law 72B1 on the other board, but not on this one. He did not receive any UI about this hand, so has committed no infraction on this board.

[blackshoe]

The infraction lay in not calling the TD "forthwith". The fact that he was mistaken about to which board the information he had pertained does not seem to me to be relevant to the requirement to call the TD.

[RMB1]

mjj29, on Sep 16 2010, 12:20 AM, said:

Only if matchpoints are the final form of scoring are they equivalent. The OP didn't say, of course, or even whether it was matchpoints or imps

If the final form of scoring is conversion to victory points then I would need to decide between the different averages for the boards and the size of the fine.

[RMB1]

lamford, on Sep 16 2010, 01:45 AM, said:

RMB1, on Sep 15 2010, 06:18 PM, said:

West's failure to notify the TD is an irregularity and Law 23 should be considered.  Law 23 says "rub of the green" does not apply if the offender "could have known".

I agree with the first sentence, but I would argue that for him to have committed an infraction he has to have received information about the board he is playing, in which case any penalty clearly applies to that board, or about a board he is due to play, in which case the penalty is applied to that board. ...

I think it would be illegal for the player to lead small from AKQJx on every board in the session in the hope that this was the board that the underlead works.

The laws do not allow the use of unauthorised information to suggest a call or play (Law 16A3). There is no restriction in Law 16A as to the source or relevance of the unauthorised information. There is no penalty defined in Law 16A3, but the lead of the small club on the first board was against that law.

The player should have notified the TD when he heard the remark, when he picked up ♣AKQJx and knew the information might be relevant, and when he was on lead (and at all points in between). Instead he made a play that was based on extraneous information in an attempt to gain - he hoped to see the contract defeated, even if he did not expect the score to stand.

[CSGibson]

lamford, on Sep 15 2010, 08:43 AM, said:

As far as the board he is playing is concerned, West did not receive unauthorised information "about the board he is playing", so has no UI as defined in 16C1. I agree, of course, regarding the board he is yet to play.

West has unauthorized information. He acted on that unauthorized information on this board, and his opponents were damaged as a result. It seems clear to me that this should be corrected, even if West was mistaken in his belief that the unauthorized information applied to this board.

[lamford]

RMB1, on Sep 16 2010, 02:21 AM, said:

The laws do not allow the use of unauthorised information to suggest a call or play (Law 16A3).  There is no restriction in Law 16A as to the source or relevance of the unauthorised information.  There is no penalty defined in Law 16A3, but the lead of the small club on the first board was against that law.

I think all we are disputing is whether a player received unauthorised information about this board. If a player overheard someone say "the king of clubs is singleton offside again" and the player making the remark was playing in a match with different boards, would you punish someone, hearing the remark, who successfully dropped the singleton king of clubs in the duplicate event?

Or, if they were the same boards, would you award an adjusted score on all boards where the declarer was missing the king of clubs, because the odds had been tilted slightly? And if the player was not scheduled to play that board - either he had already played it or it was not a board in his schedule - then there would be no infraction, because the information would not be "about a board he is playing or has yet to play." Note that it does not say "a board he thinks he is playing or has yet to play" which seems to be your interpretation.

It is surely integral to the operation of 16A3 that the only board on which the director takes action is the one from which the UI emanates. We get nonsense if we try to consider all boards together. Are you saying that after the first board of the evening, all calls after that are cancelled under Law 39A? No, the ending of one board starts almost every Law afresh, and infractions on one board do not have any effect, generally, on others. Exceptions might include repeated psyches or general behaviour.

[Pict]

I don't find this argument convincing at all.

If I ask West why he led a small club and he says it was because he overhead a comment that suggested the small club was the only winning lead, I'd say case closed: there really is no need to discover West was right in the outcome, but wrong in his choice of extraneous information.

If partner breaks tempo, for no good reason, and I act (successfully) on my inference from the BIT, it will not help us if partner explains he drifted into thinking about the previous board.

[bluejak]

A player sees board 23 on the floor. Having the ethics of a snake, he quickly looks at the West hand. No-one sees him.

When board 23 comes along he deliberately uses the information and gets a good result. Is this cheating?

Now the TD investigates and finds that it was an old board 23 from an earlier session, not the current one. How many people now think he has done nothing wrong?

[lamford]

Pict, on Sep 16 2010, 04:43 AM, said:

If partner breaks tempo, for no good reason, and I act (successfully) on my inference from the BIT, it will not help us if partner explains he drifted into thinking about the previous board.

I agree completely. The difference is that you have UI on this board in such a case.

If West was not scheduled to play the board in question, or had played it but not connected the remark with that earlier board, would you still adjust, and under which Law?

[lamford]

bluejak, on Sep 16 2010, 05:33 AM, said:

A player sees board 23 on the floor.  Having the ethics of a snake, he quickly looks at the West hand.  No-one sees him.

When board 23 comes along he deliberately uses the information and gets a good result.  Is this cheating?

Now the TD investigates and finds that it was an old board 23 from an earlier session, not the current one.  How many people now think he has done nothing wrong?

I totally agree he merits a PP, or even to be thrown out of the event. The question at issue is do you adjust the real board 23, and under which Law?

[bluejak]

Law 12A1 comes to mind. I see the point about Law 16 not applying to a different board, but do not think that excuses anything.

[lamford]

bluejak, on Sep 16 2010, 05:42 AM, said:

Law 12A1 comes to mind.  I see the point about Law 16 not applying to a different board, but do not think that excuses anything.

Natural justice dictates that you are right where the player attempted to cheat, but Law12A1 requires a violation, so we first have to find a Law he violated. Surely the knowledge of the West hand from the previous session is:

"(d) 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."

[axman]

blackshoe, on Sep 15 2010, 08:33 PM, said:

The infraction lay in not calling the TD "forthwith". The fact that he was mistaken about to which board the information he had pertained does not seem to me to be relevant to the requirement to call the TD.

Not that I have worked through the issues but it is apparent to me that The Infraction is the unnamed contestant that did not keep his trap shut.

As for the other 'infraction' of the failure to report immediately I am presently reluctant to classify it as a heinous crime: I would be curious to know just what** the TD is to be able to accomplish from this forthwith report when he can not find out to which board the extraneous information refers or just who created the extraneous information. Anyway, it seems to me that the primary reason for insisting that a report be made immediately is for the purpose of immediately putting a stop to the future creation of 'the' extraneous information.


** suppose that after reporting the overhearer picks up a hand he believes the EI referred and then calls the TD to say 'I think this is it' Now the opponents have EI that there is something special about the hand- and what if they act on the inference and gain a profitable outcome?

[Free]

This West is an easy target at the bar. "That 3-3 ♥ fit plays better than our 6-3♠ split on board 11". While we're at it, if you know a player who uses this UBI (unauthorized bar information) at the table, is it unethical to mislead him like this?

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on Sep 16 2010, 11:33 AM, said:

A player sees board 23 on the floor.  Having the ethics of a snake, he quickly looks at the West hand.  No-one sees him.

When board 23 comes along he deliberately uses the information and gets a good result.  Is this cheating?

Now the TD investigates and finds that it was an old board 23 from an earlier session, not the current one.  How many people now think he has done nothing wrong?

From the perspective of the laws of bridge, he has done nothing wrong. He tried to do something wrong, but failed. Morally it stinks, but that's another matter. Probably the rules of the club allow you to throw him out of the club. But I don't think the laws of bridge have been broken.

In the criminal law, attempting to commit an offence is typically an offence in itself, but usually defined as such, eg, attempted murder. I rather suspect that in civil law, attempted but unsuccessful torts are not actionable because there is no damage attributable. In bridge, there is in general no category for attempted offences. So doubt there can even be a PP for this.

To commit a UI offence, the informatoin has to demonstrably suggest something. Information from the wrong hand does not demonstrably suggest anything. Of course you may be unaware that the information is from the wrong hand, but that doesn't alter the fact it is from the wrong hand. You thought you had some information, but in reality you didn't. Similarly, you may believe in astrology, and believe some horoscope that appears to give you an insight into the cards. If by chance acting on the horoscope information gives you good scores today, well that's just by chance. You thought you had information, but in reality, you didn't.

[bluejak]

axman, on Sep 16 2010, 12:46 PM, said:

As for the other 'infraction' of the failure to report immediately I am presently reluctant to classify it as a heinous crime:  I would be curious to know just what** the TD is to be able to accomplish from this forthwith report when he can not find out to which board the extraneous information refers or just who created the extraneous information.  Anyway, it seems to me that the primary reason for insisting that a report be made immediately is for the purpose of immediately putting a stop to the future creation of 'the' extraneous information.

No end of trouble is caused, again and again, from people who do not report UI to the TD. They tend to judge themselves whether it makes a difference, and keep quiet if they think it did not - a self-serving decision.

Saying a fairly common infraction that causes a lot of trouble is not a heinous crime is not right in my view.

[CSGibson]

lamford, on Sep 16 2010, 03:48 AM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 16 2010, 05:42 AM, said:

Law 12A1 comes to mind.  I see the point about Law 16 not applying to a different board, but do not think that excuses anything.

Natural justice dictates that you are right where the player attempted to cheat, but Law12A1 requires a violation, so we first have to find a Law he violated. Surely the knowledge of the West hand from the previous session is:

"(d) 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."

yeah, just like an overheard remark is information he had before he took his hand from the board. Doesn't mean that we can't adjust.

This is a very simple situation. West was in the wrong, and North-South were damaged. Instead of looking at all of the laws trying to figure out what applies and doesn't apply to this situation, we should be looking at what would restore equity, and then look through the laws to find something that allows us to do so. That is the overriding principle behind having law in the first place - justice.

[lamford]

CSGibson, on Sep 16 2010, 10:09 AM, said:

Instead of looking at all of the laws trying to figure out what applies and doesn't apply to this situation, we should be looking at what would restore equity, and then look through the laws to find something that allows us to do so. That is the overriding principle behind having law in the first place - justice.

The laws do provide the power to restore equity where there is no remedy for an infraction, but first there has to be an infraction, and not a moral one, but a breach of one of the Laws of Bridge.

I am with iviehoff. West did not have any UI. He just thought he did. The underlead of the AKQJ of clubs was extremely unlikely to be successful. North-South were damaged not because of West's attempt to cheat but by an unlucky layout. One thing it is not is a simple case. If it were it would have been moved to simple rulings.

[RMB1]

He did have UI: specifically on a board, probably one in play in this room in this session, an underlead of ♣AKQJx was the only lead to defeat the contract. He is not allowed to use that information on any hand, unless or until the TD has ruled under Law 16C.