[lamford]

---

Matchpoints

The Chimp always tries to play the hand whenever possible, but SB, West, suspected some additional reason for wanting to do so on the above hand, and he wondered whether that information was authorised. The board had been passed from the previous table, where RR, North, was partnering HH, and it took an awful long time to arrive. ChCh deduced, or so SB claimed, that RR must have been declarer on the previous table as HH is known to play at the speed of light, whereas RR often asks what the contract is at various points in the play. West led a spade against the pushy 3NT contract, MM having opened 1♦ as North, and East discarded a small diamond on this, South winning with the ten. Now ChCh led the king of hearts at trick two unblocking the ten from dummy!! East won and switched to the queen of clubs, but it was all too late. Declarer won with the king and continued with the nine of hearts. West won and played another spade, but South won and set up his long heart. West cleared the spades, but the five of hearts then began a see-saw squeeze on East in the minors and ChCh wrapped up nine tricks.

"Director!" bellowed SB, when he saw all four hands. "South used UI from another source, in that he responded 3NT rather than the normal 1H." He paused for breath. "He did this because he worked out RR must have been declarer at the previous table, from the time the board took to arrive, and therefore he "knew" North did not have four hearts." "He could not take the risk that MM would rebid a 11-13 NT on the North hand and play a potentially difficult contract. Also 3NT by North had no chance on the queen of clubs lead, and I think the score should be adjusted as ChCh breached Law 16D."

"Rubbish!" said ChCh. "I responded 3NT to prevent MM getting her hapless hooves on the dummy if she rebid 1NT." MM was used to insults and ignored this. "And," ChCh continued, "the length of time the board took to arrive and who was sitting at the next table" was "information I possessed when I took my cards from the board, so was AI anyway". He concluded: "So, even if I did use it, I am not prevented from doing so by the Laws. Also I did not get that information "accidentally", I learned it from the TD announcement that boards were moving down and pairs were moving up, and from the delay in receiving the board after the TD call of the move."

OO arrived. "Nice hand," he observed, "and the king of hearts was I think a form of the Deschappelles Coup, forcing East to win a heart prematurely so that he cannot break up the see-saw squeeze with two club leads, and the unblock of the ten was also very nice. If ChCh failed to do that, East would win with the ace, exit with a club and West could win the second heart and switch to his singleton diamond, severing communications." He concluded: "I am not sure whether the fact that the board took a long time to arrive is AI or UI, however. The laws are silent on the matter. I am also unsure whether who is at the next table is AI or UI."

How do you rule?

Acknowlegements to Leslie Cass for the hand.

[weejonnie]

16D1 - but totally unenforceable.

D. Extraneous Information from Other Sources
1. When a player accidentally receives extraneous information about a board he is playing or
has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by
seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own
table before the auction begins (see also Law 13A), the Director should be notified
forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information.

ChCh has information that the hand took an exceptionally long time to play - and hence was difficult and therefore made use of this fact (by ensuring he became declarer) without calling the Director (as he should).

This is no real different from being given a board very quickly (or noting that a table has finished very quickly) and deducing it was passed out.

[barmar]

The time this board arrived doesn't necessarily imply that the time was taken on this board. It could have been a previous board, which caused them to start this board later.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-October-10, 08:35, said:

16D1 - but totally unenforceable.

D. Extraneous Information from Other Sources
1. When a player accidentally receives extraneous information about a board he is playing or
has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by
seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own
table before the auction begins (see also Law 13A), the Director should be notified
forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information.

ChCh has information that the hand took an exceptionally long time to play - and hence was difficult and therefore made use of this fact (by ensuring he became declarer) without calling the Director (as he should).

This is no real different from being given a board very quickly (or noting that a table has finished very quickly) and deducing it was passed out.

I don't agree that the time taken to play a board is similar to those listed after "as by" in 16D1. On your basis, whenever only one board is passed on, one also has UI that both boards were not passed out, and it is very unlikely that one of them was, and the TD should, if you think this is UI, be called every time. If you get both boards immediately from a table at which there is a particular slow player, you have UI that he was dummy on at least one of the two boards and again should call the TD. The list is endless, and at our club there would be two or three TD calls per round, whenever there are slow tables, or whenever there are quick tables! I think that "as by" means "similar to" in this context, and the "time taken" is not similar enough.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-October-10, 09:11, said:

The time this board arrived doesn't necessarily imply that the time was taken on this board. It could have been a previous board, which caused them to start this board later.

Indeed, but ChCh will know when he plays the previous board whether this is likely to be the case.

[sanst]

Touching a tablet at the wrong point, can lead to an unwanted result. Sorry lamford, that positive reputation is totally by accident. I wasn’t going to reply, but now I feel obliged to give my decision. I would sent both players packing, both for breaching Law 74A.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2018-October-10, 10:45, said:

Touching a tablet at the wrong point, can lead to an unwanted result. Sorry lamford, that positive reputation is totally by accident. I wasn’t going to reply, but now I feel obliged to give my decision. I would sent both players packing, both for breaching Law 74A.

I was delighted to get your upvote, despite your second thoughts.

I presume by "both players" you mean SB and ChCh, and I think you should note, before SB points it out to you, that 74A uses "should" which means: "failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised". So, you would be wrong to even give a PP for their behaviour, let alone "send them packing" which I presume is Dutch for disqualification. Or should that be "Double Dutch" as there are two of them?

[sanst]

lamford, on 2018-October-10, 10:55, said:

I was delighted to get your upvote, despite your second thoughts.

I presume by "both players" you mean SB and ChCh, and I think you should note, before SB points it out to you, that 74A uses "should" which means: "failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised". So, you would be wrong to even give a PP for their behaviour, let alone "send them packing" which I presume is Dutch for disqualification. Or should that be "Double Dutch" as there are two of them?

AFAIK it’s English meaning “tell them very forcefully to leave a place”. I won’t give you the Dutch translation, which would probably “triple or even more Dutch” to you, but “there is no French in it” as the Dutch expression goes.

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2018-October-10, 10:22, said:

I don't agree that the time taken to play a board is similar to those listed after "as by" in 16D1. On your basis, whenever only one board is passed on, one also has UI that both boards were not passed out, and it is very unlikely that one of them was, and the TD should, if you think this is UI, be called every time. If you get both boards immediately from a table at which there is a particular slow player, you have UI that he was dummy on at least one of the two boards and again should call the TD. The list is endless, and at our club there would be two or three TD calls per round, whenever there are slow tables, or whenever there are quick tables! I think that "as by" means "similar to" in this context, and the "time taken" is not similar enough.

Hence the use of the word "unenforceable". There are exceptional cases of course and some player yklept ChCh is well noted for paying attention to other hands than the one that he is playing.

SB is allowed to make use of that knowledge of course in calling the TD as the known attributes of other players is specifically allowed information.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-October-10, 12:39, said:

Hence the use of the word "unenforceable". There are exceptional cases of course and some player yklept ChCh is well noted for paying attention to other hands than the one that he is playing.

SB is allowed to make use of that knowledge of course in calling the TD as the known attributes of other players is specifically allowed information.

And I always thought it was yclept, based on a successful challenge in Scrabble of yklept. Given that all the threads seem to be degenerating into linguistic discussions as people one by one give up on the Laws.

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2018-October-10, 12:59, said:

And I always thought it was yclept, based on a successful challenge in Scrabble of yklept. Given that all the threads seem to be degenerating into linguistic discussions as people one by one give up on the Laws.

I acknowledge the correctness of your response, however we have still to decide whether ChCh can make advantage of knowing the length of time a board was played. AFAICS if that is allowed then it would appear that knowledge of where each player is sitting is also AI - note that even if a player does not look at the initial sittings they can work it out gradually for Nearly half (mitchell) or more than half (Howell) the opponents merely by knowing the bridge movement and the pair number shown on bridgemates.

2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their
opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations.

Would seem to mean "the traits of all other players in the session" as they are all opponents: maybe it should read "traits of the opponents at the table"

So I am finding it very hard to refute your argument that ChCh can make use of the fact that RR played the hand.

[axman]

lamford, on 2018-October-10, 10:22, said:

I don't agree that the time taken to play a board is similar to those listed after "as by" in 16D1. On your basis, whenever only one board is passed on, one also has UI that both boards were not passed out, and it is very unlikely that one of them was, and the TD should, if you think this is UI, be called every time. If you get both boards immediately from a table at which there is a particular slow player, you have UI that he was dummy on at least one of the two boards and again should call the TD. The list is endless, and at our club there would be two or three TD calls per round, whenever there are slow tables, or whenever there are quick tables! I think that "as by" means "similar to" in this context, and the "time taken" is not similar enough.

Speaking of SB fuminations, I am reminded of a story predating the time of pocket calculators. A kid had access to his father's mainframe and used it to do his math homework perfectly. The unfairness drew the ire of his classmates. What went unsaid was the countless hours spent doing the programming. The moral being it is a matter of perspective.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2018-October-10, 13:38, said:

Would seem to mean "the traits of all other players in the session" as they are all opponents: maybe it should read "traits of the opponents at the table"

I think traits of other players in the session is allowed -- don't we teach players to base some of their decisions on what they think "the field" will do?

[barmar]

The simple fact is that there are some infractions that are almost impossible to prove. The Laws sometimes refer to actions performed deliberately or with intent, and require the TD to make judgement decisions about this, but for the most part they concern themselves with mechanical issues. Enumerating more of the hard-to-detect cases, like this one, would mostly be a wasted effort. What good does it do to have a law explicitly prohibiting taking action based on what you deliberately infer from action outside your table if there's no way to tell if that's what someone has done?

The difference between this and accidentally overhearing something is based on the presumption of honorability. If someone does something wrong intentionally, you don't expect them to admit it, and you can't prove it any other way. But if an honorable player does something wrong accidentally they'll admit it, and then we can try to rectify it. That's why we have laws telling the TD how to rectify these irregularities.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-October-11, 12:45, said:

The simple fact is that there are some infractions that are almost impossible to prove.

I would say that the Laws do not prove that this is an infraction. Accidentally overhearing something is already covered.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-October-11, 14:11, said:

I would say that the Laws do not prove that this is an infraction. Accidentally overhearing something is already covered.

That's the point I was making. Even though we know this is wrong, there's no law explicitly making it an infraction because it would be impossible to enforce. What's the point of writing a law that has no teeth?

There are many things in real life that are wrong to do, but are not explicitly illegal. If you do it as a child, your parents tell you that you're naughty, and you hopefully learn not to do it. If you do it as an adult, you might get shunned, lose friends, get fired, etc. Things like telling lies, breaking promises, being habitually late. "Everyone knows" that these are not the way the game of life is played.

But you don't always get caught, and sometimes you get rewarded by becoming President or a Supreme Court justice.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-October-11, 19:20, said:

That's the point I was making. Even though we know this is wrong, there's no law explicitly making it an infraction because it would be impossible to enforce. What's the point of writing a law that has no teeth?

If Law 16D made it an infraction deliberately to obtain information from another table, we might have a chance in enforcing it, combining eye witness testimony with unusual actions at the table on which the miscreant is actually sitting.

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2018-October-12, 17:15, said:

If Law 16D made it an infraction deliberately to obtain information from another table, we might have a chance in enforcing it, combining eye witness testimony with unusual actions at the table on which the miscreant is actually sitting.

Isn't there a law about not deliberately looking at an opponent to see what cards they hold - but any information accidentally obtained can be used? Could be amended.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-October-13, 09:10, said:

Isn't there a law about not deliberately looking at an opponent to see what cards they hold - but any information accidentally obtained can be used? Could be amended.

"74C5: looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player’s hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing an opponent’s card)".

SB argues that "looking intently", rather than "looking" is the infraction, and he casts the "briefest of glances" at the opposing hand when he has a queen guess (in spades only, or in clubs against a sinister opponent who is known to sort from right to left), and if the third card is detached he plays that person for Qxx and if the second card is detached he plays that person for Qx or xx. He fully accepts that he does this at his own risk, but he has about an 85% success rate against unaware opponents. SB thinks the word "intently" should be removed from this law.