[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2018-October-03, 15:12, said:

Assuming that players have no prior knowledge of the board they are going to play, it’s impossible to know whether you will gain by placing the board in the wrong direction. Note, not “not remotely possible” but absolutely impossible, 100%. Besides, there is non real ground in the Laws for your take on this. I hope that you’re not directing the way you describe here, because you’re way out of line, certainly over here.

But you DO have prior knowledge, you know who declared, which as specified in the OP if you play a similar system, means you are also likely to declare if it's a standard auction say 1N-6N, and if you're the much better player ...

[sanst]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-October-03, 16:43, said:

But you DO have prior knowledge, you know who declared, which as specified in the OP if you play a similar system, means you are also likely to declare if it's a standard auction say 1N-6N, and if you're the much better player ...

I answered to

lamford, on 2018-October-03, 05:55, said:

If North places the board on the table in the wrong direction, rotated through 180° playing with a weak partner, and he ends up making 6NT on a vice squeeze, he obviously could be aware that the infraction would damage the NOS, however, even though he had no idea whether it would or not. I would punish that,

If everything goes as it should, you have no prior knowledge of the board and can’t be aware that the infraction might damage EW. Besides, all players should check whether it’s the right board and is played in the right direction. That’s a consequence of Law7B1: “Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position“.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2018-October-04, 02:11, said:

If everything goes as it should, you have no prior knowledge of the board and can’t be aware that the infraction might damage EW. Besides, all players should check whether it’s the right board and is played in the right direction. That’s a consequence of Law7B1: “Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position“.

Many times in a pairs movement (where you get the boards from the table behind your partner) you will have this knowledge, particularly in a room full of the more elderly members of the population where dummy sometimes goes for a pee.

[sanst]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-October-04, 02:59, said:

Many times in a pairs movement (where you get the boards from the table behind your partner) you will have this knowledge, particularly in a room full of the more elderly members of the population where dummy sometimes goes for a pee.

I’m glad that this is not the case over here, though most clubs have elderly members. I can’t speak for the weakest players, who usually have a habit of ignoring the rules or mostly don’t know these, but they don’t care, so why would I?

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2018-October-04, 03:09, said:

I’m glad that this is not the case over here, though most clubs have elderly members. I can’t speak for the weakest players, who usually have a habit of ignoring the rules or mostly don’t know these, but they don’t care, so why would I?

It's acceptable here, you ask permission from partner and opps and it's always given, as a diabetic who does sometimes need to find the restroom in a hurry I'm not immune form this. In many ways I'd prefer my opp to do this than hold me up at the start of a new round or between boards.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-October-03, 16:43, said:

But you DO have prior knowledge, you know who declared, which as specified in the OP if you play a similar system, means you are also likely to declare if it's a standard auction say 1N-6N, and if you're the much better player ...

Wouldn't it be simpler and more effective to just wait until you see who's sitting where at the beginning of the event, and then choose your seat appropriately? If you see another strong player sitting North, don't put your weak partner in that seat. Rotating the board for just a single hand won't gain you nearly as much.

But I suppose if there's a mix of strong and weak players in the North seats, the best you can do is try to get the advantage on a board you have some suspicion will be tricky for partner.

Anyway, if the TD has good reason to believe that the Chimp did this intentionally, based on extraneous information, I believe that's outside the scope of the laws we're discussing. They're not intended to address intentional cheating, just failing to be careful in certain circumstances.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2018-October-03, 15:12, said:

Assuming that players have no prior knowledge of the board they are going to play, it’s impossible to know whether you will gain by placing the board in the wrong direction. Note, not “not remotely possible” but absolutely impossible, 100%. Besides, there is non real ground in the Laws for your take on this. I hope that you’re not directing the way you describe here, because you’re way out of line, certainly over here.

Assuming that the tables are placed in order and that the boards are passed down and the players move up or similar, then only someone who is visually impaired can fail to notice which person was declarer, one or two tables away, prior to the board being passed to the table you are about to play. Try looking at a table in play about ten feet away and it is pretty obvious which person is declarer because dummy is not holding any cards, or even not present sometimes. The other gain from rotating the board is that it is much better to be dealer or second in hand than third or fourth in hand if you are partnering a weak player. Bridgebase stats show that about 62% of the time a pair declares the person who makes the first call is declarer. Just think about the times when you shudder when your weak partner opens 1NT and there is almost no way you can play the hand. I also think that there is a significant advantage in being on lead - certainly my Pianola stats suggest that it is - and rotating the board through 180% is routine Chimp behaviour when he thinks he can gain and this is why he has not been allowed to sit North.

Note not "not remotely possible" but absolutely certain, 100%. Besides, there is provision in Law 7A and Law 12A1 for an adjustment when this infraction gains. I very much hope that you're not directing contrary the way I described, because you're way out of line, wherever you are. I would have used FYP but there was too much crossing out to do.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-October-04, 09:05, said:

Wouldn't it be simpler and more effective to just wait until you see who's sitting where at the beginning of the event, and then choose your seat appropriately? If you see another strong player sitting North, don't put your weak partner in that seat. Rotating the board for just a single hand won't gain you nearly as much.

But I suppose if there's a mix of strong and weak players in the North seats, the best you can do is try to get the advantage on a board you have some suspicion will be tricky for partner.

Anyway, if the TD has good reason to believe that the Chimp did this intentionally, based on extraneous information, I believe that's outside the scope of the laws we're discussing. They're not intended to address intentional cheating, just failing to be careful in certain circumstances.

I think you are completely missing the point, Barry. There are two distinct situations where rotating the board gains. Firstly, you should always sit North, as you have control of the board and it is usually passed to you. If you see South at the helm on the previous table (even if he is Garozzo) you rotate the board through 180°, vastly increasing your chance of playing the hand.

Secondly, if you did not see who was declarer at the previous table, then as North you should rotate 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30 and 31, a list which ChCh recited without pause for breath. This guarantees you will get to call before your hapless partner has a chance to open 1NT.

The Chimp boasted that ruthless rotation of all the boards in this list that you are due to play, in conjunction with careful vigilance of the previous table was worth around 20% per session, but then he said "I am joking, of course!"

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2018-October-04, 10:53, said:

Assuming that the tables are placed in order and that the boards are passed down and the players move up or similar, then only someone who is visually impaired can fail to notice which person was declarer, one or two tables away, prior to the board being passed to the table you are about to play.

Huh. I regularly "fail to notice" that. Should I start wearing dark glasses and carrying a white cane?

[sanst]

lamford, on 2018-October-04, 10:53, said:

Assuming that the tables are placed in order and that the boards are passed down and the players move up or similar, then only someone who is visually impaired can fail to notice which person was declarer, one or two tables away, prior to the board being passed to the table you are about to play.

There are other movements, e.g. those used over here, where the boards remain at the table and the players move, quite often from one side of the room to the other. To make it still more difficult to gain information that way, you can have two, three or more lines with different boards in each line. Assuming that most, if not all, players are basically honest, you shouldn’t take the stand that they are not averse of using the information they can gather from what is happening at the other tables.
But then, you’re directing at a club where most of us wouldn’t play, not with the Chimp and SB welcome.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2018-October-05, 02:05, said:

But then, you’re directing at a club where most of us wouldn’t play, not with the Chimp and SB welcome.

Au contraire. We can only accommodate 18 tables and from time to time turn people away! And the Chimp's favourite book is The Manual of Duplicate Bridge Movements by Manning, and it does not make any difference whether the boards or players move, as the Chimp will always know who played the board the previous time and will note who was dummy. And it is not UI, as it was information that the Chimp possessed when he took his cards from the board, so is expressly permitted by 16A1(d), so he is not cheating in noting this:

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 Chimp may use this information in the auction if he has not rotated the board. Rotating the board through 180° however, is a breach of Law 7A ("correctly oriented"), although ChCh always claims it was done in error. Surely this is not allowed to pass without at least an occasional PP in Holland? 7A uses "shall", which according to the laws means: "(a violation will incur a penalty more often than not)". Is a penalty EVER applied in Holland?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2018-October-04, 16:20, said:

Huh. I regularly "fail to notice" that. Should I start wearing dark glasses and carrying a white cane?

I think a trip to Specsavers (or perhaps, in the US, Luxottica) will suffice.

[blackshoe]

Pfui.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-October-04, 11:08, said:

I think you are completely missing the point, Barry. There are two distinct situations where rotating the board gains. Firstly, you should always sit North, as you have control of the board and it is usually passed to you.

If the tables are in two rows, as is often the case, then in one row the boards get passed from South to North, in the other row they get passed from North to South. And they get passed laterally between the tables at the ends of the rows.

But you can sit in the receiving seat for whichever row you choose. It's probably best for you to sit in the seat that can see the higher numbered table; if you back is to the sending table it will be harder for you to tell who was declarer in the previous round.

Has this thread really devolved into discussing the best ways to cheat by knowing who declared when the board was played previously?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-October-05, 11:09, said:

Has this thread really devolved into discussing the best ways to cheat by knowing who declared when the board was played previously?

Who said it was cheating? I think rotating the board is illegal, but I could find nothing in the laws preventing you using the information about who declared when the board was played previously. Just as I can find nothing about using the fact that your main rival is 5% clear of you at half-time using the running scores displayed.

[pran]

lamford, on 2018-October-05, 17:11, said:

Who said it was cheating? I think rotating the board is illegal, but I could find nothing in the laws preventing you using the information about who declared when the board was played previously. Just as I can find nothing about using the fact that your main rival is 5% clear of you at half-time using the running scores displayed.

So you haven't yet discovered Law 16D?

[sanst]

lamford, on 2018-October-05, 02:50, said:

So, the Chimp may use this information in the auction if he has not rotated the board. Rotating the board through 180° however, is a breach of Law 7A ("correctly oriented"), although ChCh always claims it was done in error. Surely this is not allowed to pass without at least an occasional PP in Holland? 7A uses "shall", which according to the laws means: "(a violation will incur a penalty more often than not)". Is a penalty EVER applied in Holland?

The answer to your first question is “No”. There are four players at the table and each of them should take the right cards from the board (7B1). So if you’re going to penalize, all four of them should be awarded a PP. To your second question the answer is “Yes”, mostly a warning, but a serious one if the occasion calls for it, like blatant use of UI by a experienced player.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2018-October-06, 02:53, said:

The answer to your first question is “No”. There are four players at the table and each of them should take the right cards from the board (7B1). So if you’re going to penalize, all four of them should be awarded a PP. To your second question the answer is “Yes”, mostly a warning, but a serious one if the occasion calls for it, like blatant use of UI by a experienced player.

TBF if one player does this, the others just accept the only way they can play the board is to pull out theirs in the rotated position and that's what the director would tell them to do anyway and never think of awarding a penalty. He should be called so that the third or fourth time he does penalise.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2018-October-03, 15:12, said:

Assuming that players have no prior knowledge of the board they are going to play, it’s impossible to know whether you will gain by placing the board in the wrong direction. Note, not “not remotely possible” but absolutely impossible, 100%. Besides, there is non real ground in the Laws for your take on this. I hope that you’re not directing the way you describe here, because you’re way out of line, certainly over here.

But that means the Laws are way out of line with reality, because almost every tournament I see people straining to pick up information about the boards played on other tables. Maybe your players are more virtuous, but the Laws have to work everywhere.

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-October-06, 04:20, said:

TBF if one player does this, the others just accept the only way they can play the board is to pull out theirs in the rotated position and that's what the director would tell them to do anyway and never think of awarding a penalty. He should be called so that the third or fourth time he does penalise.

If I were to be called, the first time I would issue a warning. The second time I would issue a PP in MPs or IMPs. If it gets to a third time, I would increase the penalty.