[iviehoff]

bluejak, on Sep 17 2010, 12:37 AM, said:

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.

Actually your second sentence contradicts what I said.

Under what law or laws of bridge is attempting to cheat and failing to do so an offence?

[blackshoe]

There are a lot of places where the practical approach taken by those who have to deal with situations does not follow the literal words of the laws. It is nonetheless the approach taken, and if the law, or the implementation of the law, is not perfect, well, that's life.

I don't want to stifle discussion — if you want to start a new thread in "changing laws", feel free. I may participate in that thread, I may not. Nothing to do with moderating, only with how interested I am in the topic of the thread (as with any thread, and any reader/poster here).

We can split threads, but it gets complicated when the posts which discuss how the law is screwed up get interlaced with the discussion of what the practical ruling should be. If we catch a digression early enough, that's one thing, but if it gets beyond that, it becomes a mess. It doesn't help that it's pretty much the nature of discussions on the internet that they digress, come back on point, digress again, and so on. Most of the time we just live with short digressions, and sometimes that turns out to have been a mistake, which is how I feel about it here, where the digression seems to have a life of its own. It would help if posters used a little forethought, and we got "I think the law here is FUBAR, I'll go start a thread in "changing laws..." but I realize that's a lot to ask.

In the OP, the scenario presented was that a player heard something about a board he was yet to play, deliberately decided not to call the TD, used the information he got, and his opponents were damaged. It does not matter that he intended to call the TD after the fact and accept an adjusted score. It does not matter that the board he thought the information was about was not the board which led to the comment (and btw, UI does not "emanate" from boards in these cases, it emanates from players). He has done what a cheat would do, and while we do not say he is a cheat, we certainly ought to rule that he has done something he should not.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on Sep 17 2010, 09:21 AM, said:

He has done what a cheat would do, and while we do not say he is a cheat, we certainly ought to rule that he has done something he should not.

I agree that he has done what a cheat would do, but we must still rule in accordance with the Laws. As iviehofff asks,

"Under what law or laws of bridge is attempting to cheat and failing to do so an offence?" And I don't think "common sense" is an adequate answer.

[dburn]

The question of whether or not a player commits an infraction is invariably vexed. To give another example:

A player opens 1NT with a poor to average 15 count; his partner raises slowly to 2NT and he bids 3NT. This is an execrable contract, because his partner was wondering whether to pass 1NT with his eight count, not whether to bid 3NT. But three finesses and a couple of 3-3 breaks later, nine tricks are made.

Now, has this player committed the infraction of using UI? Obviously not, because his partner's tempo gave him no information at all about his partner's hand - if it had done, he would never have bid game. Where there is no information, there can be no unauthorised information; yet I suppose there is no Director or Committee in the world who would not adjust this result to 1NT making three.

Various attempts to resolve this difficulty have produced nothing that makes any sense at all; appeals to such principles as "rub of the green" on the one hand and "natural justice" on the other are equally foolish. Pity the poor fellow with a sixteen count - if he passes and his partner was thinking about raising to 3NT which fails, he may very well have his score adjusted to 3NT down one, such is the desire to punish by score adjustment felonies and misdemeanours that ought to be punished by disciplinary penalty, and to aver that a man who has obtained a good result in an irregular fashion must be guilty of something, even though no one actually knows what.

[jdonn]

lamford, on Sep 17 2010, 12:24 PM, said:

And I don't think "common sense" is an adequate answer.

Common sense should always be an adequate answer.

[dburn]

jdonn, on Sep 17 2010, 01:06 PM, said:

lamford, on Sep 17 2010, 12:24 PM, said:

And I don't think "common sense" is an adequate answer.

Common sense should always be an adequate answer.

"Common sense" is one of those well-known oxymorons, like "military intelligence". Particularly at bridge, what is sensible is not common, and what is common is not sensible.

[Pict]

dburn, on Sep 17 2010, 01:04 PM, said:

The question of whether or not a player commits an infraction is invariably vexed. To give another example:

A player opens 1NT with a poor to average 15 count; his partner raises slowly to 2NT and he bids 3NT. This is an execrable contract, because his partner was wondering whether to pass 1NT with his eight count, not whether to bid 3NT. But three finesses and a couple of 3-3 breaks later, nine tricks are made.

Now, has this player committed the infraction of using UI? Obviously not, because his partner's tempo gave him no information at all about his partner's hand - if it had done, he would never have bid game. Where there is no information, there can be no unauthorised information; yet I suppose there is no Director or Committee in the world who would not adjust this result to 1NT making three.

Various attempts to resolve this difficulty have produced nothing that makes any sense at all; appeals to such principles as "rub of the green" on the one hand and "natural justice" on the other are equally foolish. Pity the poor fellow with a sixteen count - if he passes and his partner was thinking about raising to 3NT which fails, he may very well have his score adjusted to 3NT down one, such is the desire to punish by score adjustment felonies and misdemeanours that ought to be punished by disciplinary penalty, and to aver that a man who has obtained a good result in an irregular fashion must be guilty of something, even though no one actually knows what.

Well expressed.

Lamford points out a poor wording in the extraneous information portion of L16.

Noone (I think other than me attempted to relate it to the rest of L16 about partner).

I still wonder how (as dburn sort of intimates) you can apply the notion of UI(U-information) to something that contains no real world information at all.

Seems like we play a gambling card game, but with a police force empowered to apply the ethics of child-rearing.

Sorry Blackshoe, I've no problem with TD judgments, just the constant ground shifting in argument.

[jdonn]

dburn, on Sep 17 2010, 01:53 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 17 2010, 01:06 PM, said:

lamford, on Sep 17 2010, 12:24 PM, said:

And I don't think "common sense" is an adequate answer.

Common sense should always be an adequate answer.

"Common sense" is one of those well-known oxymorons, like "military intelligence". Particularly at bridge, what is sensible is not common, and what is common is not sensible.

I generally agree. But does anyone disagree with the 'common sense' that if someone tries to cheat but fails they should still be punished for it?

[lamford]

jdonn, on Sep 17 2010, 02:49 PM, said:

But does anyone disagree with the 'common sense' that if someone tries to cheat but fails they should still be punished for it?

I agree with should. But not if there is no law that is actually broken.

[jdonn]

lamford, on Sep 17 2010, 02:57 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 17 2010, 02:49 PM, said:

But does anyone disagree with the 'common sense' that if someone tries to cheat but fails they should still be punished for it?

I agree with should. But not if there is no law that is actually broken.

I do not agree, which brings us full circle. I have long been on record that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law. I am happy to ignore loopholes that are clearly unintended even if allowing that may have other consequences. In other words, common sense always wins over pedantry.

[JLOGIC]

jdonn, on Sep 15 2010, 10:58 AM, said:

West needs medication and a good therapist in order for society to not be at risk.

I stopped reading here, personally I thought west was hilarious even though he probably has to be penalized or something now.

But that just goes to show your comment was spot on!

[JLOGIC]

RMB1, on Sep 15 2010, 01:30 PM, said:

We only have his word that he was going to call the TD - there was time for someone to ask why he underlead AKQJx.

What? West did not have to volunteer the info that he had overheard something, if he was planning on cheating I doubt the question "why did you underlead your club" frightened him so much that he fessed up. Even though west was improper it's pretty clear to me that he wasn't trying to cheat anyone and was just having a little fun intending for the board to be thrown out anyways.

[karlson]

Agree with jallerton.

[blackshoe]

Pict, on Sep 17 2010, 03:46 PM, said:

Sorry Blackshoe, I've no problem with TD judgments, just the constant ground shifting in argument.

Where, pray tell, have I been guilty of "constant ground shifting"?

[dan_ehh]

Cheating and attempted cheating are the Bridge world's equivalents of criminal offenses. They should be punishable regardless of their results, or lack thereof.
Adjustment of a score is the equivalent of paying damages to rectify a tort. This requires the occurrence a tort, damages, and a causal link between the two.


West is guilty of attempted cheating and should be penalized. If you can't find any other suitable law, then use 72A and 72B1 in conjunction with 91A.
I do not buy his explanation simply because we will never know whether he was going to volunteer this information on his own without being asked about the strange lead, or whether he just hoped no one would notice the strange play and he might get away with it. This rationale should overrule any other reason to forgo the penalty, because if we skip the penalty then players will do this all the time, and some of them will undoubtedly get away with it.


The score should stand, however. This is because there is no causal link between the
UI (or EI) and the result. The fact that it is the wrong board breaks the causal link.
The real reason NS got a bad result is that EW got lucky that east held the club ten in this board too, and didn't try to cash a heart trick before playing back the trump. This has nothing to do with the UI, it could have just as well happened if west led a top club. The crucial part is the trump switch, not the opening lead.


Here is an equivalent from the legal world:
I'm an assassin. I poison someone, he dies, and I get caught.
After the police investigation is over and the lab report is done, it turns out that not only I'm poor at avoiding getting caught, I'm also poor at chemistry, because the "poison" I gave the victim turns out to have been apple juice.
The victim is still dead, however. The post mortem suggests this is due to natural causes, a heart attack in his sleep.
I am still guilty of attempted murder and will go to prison for it, but the family cannot sue me for damages because I did not cause the victim's death.

[lamford]

dan_ehh, on Sep 18 2010, 03:52 AM, said:

I am still guilty of attempted murder

Correct, because there is a crime of attempted murder. As pointed out, there appears to be no crime of attempted cheating under the Laws. There should be, it is agreed, and extending the TD powers under 12A1 could be the way. (72B1 is useless because he has not violated any law and 12A1 requires a violation as well.)

[lamford]

dan_ehh, on Sep 18 2010, 03:52 AM, said:

The real reason NS got a bad result is that EW got lucky that east held the club ten in this board too, and didn't try to cash a heart trick before playing back the trump.

No, the real reason that NS got a bad result was that East was wearing his spectacles and spotted the heart void in dummy. And how do you propose to beat it after a top club lead?

[dan_ehh]

lamford, on Sep 18 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

dan_ehh, on Sep 18 2010, 03:52 AM, said:

I am still guilty of attempted murder

Correct, because there is a crime of attempted murder. As pointed out, there appears to be no crime of attempted cheating under the Laws. There should be, it is agreed, and extending the TD powers under 12A1 could be the way. (72B1 is useless because he has not violated any law and 12A1 requires a violation as well.)

This is not true.
Basic criminal law says that you can be charged at attempting to commit any crime. It's called a "derived crime" (in hebrew anyway, not sure what is the English term). Same as soliciting to commit a crime is also a crime.
The reason there is a specific crime titled "attempted murder" is so that the penalty for this crime can be altered. You can verify this by researching criminal law a bit.
Anyway, this is irrelevant for the discussion. Sorry for going off topic.

I think 72A and 72B1 are sufficient because he tried to intentionally infringe the law, but if you want, you can use 74A2. I am certain that making the opponents sweat unnecessarily in a hand which you intend to cancel later by calling the TD and explaining the UI issue, counts as an action that might cause annoyance to another player. I'd certainly be annoyed at such a comment and would immediately call the director, demanding that action be taken.

lamford, on Sep 18 2010, 12:52 PM, said:

dan_ehh, on Sep 18 2010, 03:52 AM, said:

The real reason NS got a bad result is that EW got lucky that east held the club ten in this board too, and didn't try to cash a heart trick before playing back the trump.

No, the real reason that NS got a bad result was that East was wearing his spectacles and spotted the heart void in dummy. And how do you propose to beat it after a top club lead?

I had not paid enough attention to which hand was dummy. My mistake.
Also didn't notice the fact that dummy has two entries if trumps are played from the other side.
And yet, the bottom line is still the same - EW got lucky with the layout of the hand. It's not against the rules to get lucky.

[nige1]

IMO, Paul is right: Bridge law should be changed (clarified?) to make it illegal to try to break the rules.

[pran]

nige1, on Sep 18 2010, 02:54 PM, said:

IMO, Paul is right: Bridge law should be changed (clarified?) to make it illegal to try to break the rules.

It is, and should never be illegal to accidentally violating the rules, but such violation is of course subject to rectifications.

Law 72B says all that needs to be said about intentionally violating the rules.

Do we need any law about intentionally attempting to violate the rules? I think not.

For one thing such a law must establish clear criteria for how to prove intent, and as very few (if any) directors can qualify as mind readers I believe that such a law will be impossible to enforce.

And we do already have Law 74A2.