[CSGibson]

lamford, on Sep 16 2010, 08:56 AM, said:

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.

There is an infraction. RMB1 stated the UI situation in a very clear manner, and furthermore, W's failure to call the director when he thought he had received UI from an outside source that applied to his hand was another infraction.

I agree it isn't a simple case (IE, the rule book does not speak to this type of activity specifically). It is a simple situation - W had UI, acted on UI, and benefitted from his action - and in my opinion, the fact that W's UI did not stem from conversation on this board does not lessen his obligations 1.) not to act on the UI and 2.) to call the director. The fact that he did act, and that N-S were damaged, means that there has to be an adjustment.

[aguahombre]

CSGibson, on Sep 16 2010, 10:52 AM, said:

I agree it isn't a simple case ............... The fact that he did (commit an infraction or two) and that N-S were damaged, means that there has to be an adjustment.

Indeed. If there is no law allowing an adjustment, but only PP's in this case, we have a loophole. Perhaps we just have to live with it and chalk up to the fickle finger of fate, but it feels wrong.

[lamford]

RMB1, on Sep 16 2010, 11:23 AM, said:

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.

But it was not this one; it was just a coincidence that the underlead also worked here.

How would you rule if the board on which he received UI was
a ) one he had already played
b ) one he was never due to play because of the movement?

And if you would adjust, under which Law?

[lamford]

aguahombre, on Sep 16 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

Indeed. If there is no law allowing an adjustment, but only PP's in this case, we have a loophole. Perhaps we just have to live with it and chalk up to the fickle finger of fate, but it feels wrong.

I feel as unhappy as you when someone "gets away with something" because of a fault in the Law which is then remedied. But I don't think that justifies bending the Law to punish them.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on Sep 16 2010, 11:40 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Sep 16 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

Indeed.  If there is no law allowing an adjustment, but only PP's in this case, we have a loophole.  Perhaps we just have to live with it and chalk up to the fickle finger of fate, but it feels wrong.

I feel as unhappy as you when someone "gets away with something" because of a fault in the Law which is then remedied. But I don't think that justifies bending the Law to punish them.

hence the part about living with it, etc. But it is not "getting away with it" that makes me unhappy with the situation; There will be a penalty on them. It is the innocent side keeping the result that I lament.

[RMB1]

lamford, on Sep 16 2010, 06:37 PM, said:

RMB1, on Sep 16 2010, 11:23 AM, said:

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.

But it was not this one; it was just a coincidence that the underlead also worked here.

How would you rule if the board on which he received UI was
a ) one he had already played
b ) one he was never due to play because of the movement?

And if you would adjust, under which Law?

I am not sure I understand the phrase "the board on which he received UI"? I presume this means the board concerning which he received UI, the board which the UI is related to.

If the board which the UI related to was one he had already played or one he was never due to play but he tried to apply the UI to another board that he was playing and it was sucessful then I would adjust. Law 12A3 is unequivocal.

If two East's had played the two boards and both made the same remark. West only hears one of the remarks and plays one of the two boards and makes the successful play. Do we adjust if West said he overheard one East but not if he overheard the other East. As far as I can see the information West received was the same.

[lamford]

RMB1, on Sep 16 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

If the board which the UI related to was one he had already played or one he was never due to play but he tried to apply the UI to another board that he was playing and it was sucessful then I would adjust. Law 12A3 is unequivocal.

Which irregularity has been incorrectly rectified?

[lamford]

RMB1, on Sep 16 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

I am not sure I understand the phrase "the board on which he received UI"?  I presume this means the board concerning which he received UI, the board which the UI is related to.

I think it is correct to use the phrase EI, rather than UI, as someone else has done. And yes, I am referrring to the board from which EI emanated.

I think you are quite wrong to adjust if the board has already been played or will not be played. He did not have any obligation to contact the director in that case, as Law 16C1 is quite specific:

"information about a board he is playing or has yet to play." Wording that expressly indicates that information he receives about any other board is not EI.

The problem is that there is no EI, so there is no violation. I don't think there any grounds whatsoever for your adjustment under the Laws.

[RMB1]

lamford, on Sep 16 2010, 10:58 PM, said:

RMB1, on Sep 16 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

If the board which the UI related to was one he had already played or one he was never due to play but he tried to apply the UI to another board that he was playing and it was sucessful then I would adjust.  Law 12A3 is unequivocal.

Which irregularity has been incorrectly rectified?

Sorry "Law 16A3"

[RMB1]

lamford, on Sep 16 2010, 11:05 PM, said:

I think it is correct to use the phrase EI, rather than UI, as someone else has done. And yes, I am referrring to the board from which EI emanated.

You used UI in the topic description.
I do not think Law 16 makes a distinction between UI and EI.

[lamford]

RMB1, on Sep 16 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

You used UI in the topic description. 
I do not think Law 16 makes a distinction between UI and EI.

I agree that it does not matter if it is called EI or UI; perhaps I should not have bothered to suggest the former was better. 16C1 has EI in the heading and UI in the text.

I also agree that it does not matter for Law 16 purposes whether it is UI or EI. Information does indeed not have to be accurate. But for Law 16 to apply it has to be "about a board he is playing or is about to play". You do not seem to be addressing this point.

I agree that Law 16A3 prevents him using any other information. However, he is not doing so. If he started the board with the information that "the king of clubs is always singleton offside" he would be entitled to use it under 16A1d. It does not matter that the information is wrong. It is not information about a board he is playing or is about to play. Similarly if he started the board with the information that on a board that he will not play or has played, regardless of whether he knew it was a board that he will not play or has played, an underlead of AKQJ clubs worked, he is quite entitled to try that on this board. Law 16C1 has the negative implication that information about a board he has already played or will not play is authorised and the Laws do not therefore preclude the use of this information.

[bluejak]

lamford, on Sep 16 2010, 11:05 PM, said:

RMB1, on Sep 16 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

I am not sure I understand the phrase "the board on which he received UI"?  I presume this means the board concerning which he received UI, the board which the UI is related to.

I think it is correct to use the phrase EI, rather than UI, as someone else has done. And yes, I am referrring to the board from which EI emanated.

I think you are quite wrong to adjust if the board has already been played or will not be played. He did not have any obligation to contact the director in that case, as Law 16C1 is quite specific:

"information about a board he is playing or has yet to play." Wording that expressly indicates that information he receives about any other board is not EI.

The problem is that there is no EI, so there is no violation. I don't think there any grounds whatsoever for your adjustment under the Laws.

Sorry, but this is just not acceptable. He had no reason to know whether he was playing the board or not, but he heard something that quite likely would be to the detriment of his opponents. Failure to tell the TD forthwith is an infraction, and I really do not care which Law you claim it comes under or does not come under.

As someone else pointed out, murder is a violation, and attempted murder is a violation. Similarly, cheating at bridge is a violation: attempting to cheat at bridge is a violation even if you fail.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Sep 16 2010, 06:37 PM, said:

Sorry, but this is just not acceptable. He had no reason to know whether he was playing the board or not, but he heard something that quite likely would be to the detriment of his opponents. Failure to tell the TD forthwith is an infraction, and I really do not care which Law you claim it comes under or does not come under.

As someone else pointed out, murder is a violation, and attempted murder is a violation. Similarly, cheating at bridge is a violation: attempting to cheat at bridge is a violation even if you fail.

Finally common sense! Lol why would we reward him for being bad at cheating?

[lamford]

bluejak, on Sep 16 2010, 06:37 PM, said:

Failure to tell the TD forthwith is an infraction, and I really do not care which Law you claim it comes under or does not come under.

The Laws on the whole are so badly worded that I am quite happy with this approach. But it is better to get the Laws right. The correction is to change the wording to "is playing, has yet to play, or about any board that he does not know he has played." As they currently stand, there is a loophole, and that is undesirable.

Quote

He had no reason to know whether he was playing the board or not

What relevance is this? The law says "is playing or has yet to play". Where does knowing come into it?

[lamford]

bluejak, on Sep 16 2010, 06:37 PM, said:

Similarly, cheating at bridge is a violation: attempting to cheat at bridge is a violation even if you fail.

Here I totally agree, and any punishment for West you propose is acceptable. I am sure that one of the etiquette Laws can be used, perhaps 74A2. But adjusting the score on the board is different.

[bluejak]

Well, it was you [as I remember] who seemed to think it mattered. I don't. If you hear something about a board, you report it to the TD. The fact that you do not know whether it is a board you are yet to play or not is an irrelevancy.

As to what the Laws should say, that is not a matter for this forum. We like practical solutions here. And allowing someone to get away with attempted cheating is not a practical solution.

[lamford]

bluejak, on Sep 16 2010, 07:20 PM, said:

Well, it was you [as I remember] who seemed to think it mattered.  I don't.  If you hear something about a board, you report it to the TD.  The fact that you do not know whether it is a board you are yet to play or not is an irrelevancy.

As to what the Laws should say, that is not a matter for this forum.  We like practical solutions here.  And allowing someone to get away with attempted cheating is not a practical solution.

Quote

This particular forum is to understand changes that have occurred in both Laws and Regulations. Also to suggest changes that might be made. While we cannot guarantee anyone will listen to our ideas, at least if we discuss them thoroughly and make them sensible and consistent authorities might be more willing to listen.

The Alcatraz Coup was legal when first tried, but a later law change made it illegal.

[lamford]

bluejak, on Sep 16 2010, 07:20 PM, said:

If you hear something about a board, you report it to the TD. The fact that you do not know whether it is a board you are yet to play or not is an irrelevancy.

Not so; at the tea-break last night, the person to whom I was passing the boards said, "You were lucky to make that slam off two aces." This was a true statement, and I suppose it was information, but was not about a board that I was yet to play or was playing, so I guessed not to tell the TD forthwith. No doubt you would have done so.

[blackshoe]

sheesh.

This forum (Law and Rulings) is for discussing practical table rulings under the existing laws and regulations. The "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum is for discussing, among other things, shortcomings in the existing laws and regulations. Please do not try to justify discussing the latter here in Laws and Rulings.

If the powers that be decide to change the law, then the rulings we suggest in Laws and Rulings will no doubt change as well. Until that happens, if in some poster's opinion the law is an ass, I have no problem with him saying so — but in this forum that should be an end to it. If further discussion is desired, please take it to the "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum.

When you hear something about a board, and you don't know what board it is, it may well be one you have yet to play. You should call the TD and let him sort it out. If you are certain you've already played the board, of course there's no need to call the TD. Can we please try to avoid getting bogged down in silliness?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on Sep 16 2010, 09:52 PM, said:

sheesh.

This forum (Law and Rulings) is for discussing practical table rulings under the existing laws and regulations. The "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum is for discussing, among other things, shortcomings in the existing laws and regulations. Please do not try to justify discussing the latter here in Laws and Rulings.

If the powers that be decide to change the law, then the rulings we suggest in Laws and Rulings will no doubt change as well. Until that happens, if in some poster's opinion the law is an ass, I have no problem with him saying so — but in this forum that should be an end to it. If further discussion is desired, please take it to the "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum.

When I started the thread, it appeared to me that it belonged in Laws and Rulings, and not Changing Laws and Regulations. It seems impractical to have a split thread, and I presume only the moderators can reclassify an entire thread. If one aspect of a thread is criticism of the wording of a Law, I do not see why that is a problem.

I agree that the practical approach when you hear anything, that may be about a board that you have still to play, or may be about a board that you have played or will not play, or may not even be in your event, is to tell the TD. But, as you say, this forum concerns itself with what the Law says, and it is not that.

I am indeed playing Devil's Advocate. I no more condone West's actions than you or others. I would want the TD to find any means of punishing him within the Laws that he can. It is not silliness to point out that I find it hard to find a Law which he infracted, and RMB1's admirable attempts to do so are unconvincing.

Oswald Jacoby, in 1947, campaigned to change the revoke law because of the Alcatraz Coup, and I believe this was the origin of 16D2 (and Law 23 to cover similar skullduggery), but I do not have old law copies to substantiate that. Loopholes in the laws are normally plugged. Perhaps the director's powers should be widened, so that 12A1 does not require a violation but any action that "brings the game into disrepute or is against the spirit of the game". And if you think I should start a thread in Changing Laws and Regulations, rather than add that here, then I am happy to do so. And if you prefer not to hear any more on the subject, that is fine too - you are one of the moderators.