[campboy]

gnasher, on 2011-July-25, 08:30, said:

What if he asked the question in order to elicit a response, but he had no bridge reason for doing so?

For example, he asked "Would he lead the J from KJ10?" wanting to know the reply, even though he had no bridge reason for asking it. That is, he made an innocent mistake which happened to mislead an opponent.

Then 73D2 does not apply, regardless of whether or not we consider it a remark, since he did not attempt to deceive anyone.

[gnasher]

campboy, on 2011-July-25, 11:19, said:

Then 73D2 does not apply, regardless of whether or not we consider it a remark, since he did not attempt to deceive anyone.

In that case we can't apply 73F, because no violation of Law 73 has occurred. Therefore you can ask whatever irrelevant questions you like as long as your intention wasn't to deceive. This still sounds rather unsatisfactory.

[campboy]

Yes, the wording of law 73F is particularly poor. Adding an "or" immediately after the first comma would make more grammatical sense as well as changing the meaning to be more useful; I wonder whether there was one there at some stage which got lost in the writing process.

Currently, though, essentially the same problem applies to remarks. You can't safely rule that a violation of 73D2 has occurred without overwhelming evidence, since to do so would be an accusation of cheating.

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2011-July-25, 00:40, said:

If the lawmakers intended or believed that a question was a type of remark, why would they have written, in 73C:

"When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, ..."

If the lawmakers intended or believed that a question was a type of remark, they might have considered the inclusion of the word "question" in Law 73C to be completely unnecessary, given that they have already included the all-inclusive term "remark".

[AlexJonson]

jallerton, on 2011-July-25, 14:03, said:

If the lawmakers intended or believed that a question was a type of remark, they might have considered the inclusion of the word "question" in Law 73C to be completely unnecessary, given that they have already included the all-inclusive term "remark".

This appears to be a restatement of the quotation it refers to.

[jallerton]

AlexJonson, on 2011-July-25, 15:33, said:

This appears to be a restatement of the quotation it refers to.

I see what you mean. When I said "might", I ought to have said "might or might not". It is has already been demonstrated on this forum that the wording of some Laws is not consistent with the wording of other Laws, so the analogy with a Law on UI is scarcely relevant.

[jallerton]

barmar, on 2011-July-24, 09:47, said:

blackshoe, did you happen to notice that the definitions of remark and comment are circular? A remark is a comment, and a comment is a remark.

These definitions from Ed's circular dictionary are not very useful.

My own dictionary defined the noun "remark" as follows:

Quote

a written or spoken comment, anything that is said

A question comes under the "anything that is said" definition, so I conclude that deceptive questions are covered by Law 73D.

The English Bridge Union Laws & Ethics Committee agrees (as quoted by Andy above):

EBU Orange Book 2010 said:

3 E 6 As well as giving unauthorised information to partner, questions about bidding may mislead opponents, in which case they may be entitled to redress. Similarly, declarer’s questions about leads, signals and discards could illegally mislead the defenders. (Law 73F)

The EBU's use of the word "illegally" implies that this is the EBU's interpretation of the Law. Those of us ruling in England must follow this common sense interpretation, I am pleased to say.

[blackshoe]

The EBU regulation may be an interpretation of Law, but which law? 73F is mentioned, but 73F relies on a violation of some other part of Law 73. One would think that if the EBU considers that a question might violate one of those parts, they'd have said which one, instead of claiming some unspecified law has been violated and then referring the TD to the law which tells him how to rule.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-July-25, 16:51, said:

My own dictionary defined the noun "remark" as follows:

"a written or spoken comment, anything that is said"

Just as we poll a number of players to find what is an LA, we should "poll" a number of dictionaries to find the definition of a remark.

"something that you say, giving your opinion about something or stating a fact" is the closest I found to confirming your dictionary definition, but even here, "anything that is said" is qualified to distinguish it from question. My view is that a question and a remark are different, based on the majority of definitions of "remark". Now I do think that a question whose only purpose is to mislead should be punished - sorry, rectified - but I do not agree that this is the route to follow.

[bluejak]

campboy, on 2011-July-25, 12:45, said:

Yes, the wording of law 73F is particularly poor. Adding an "or" immediately after the first comma would make more grammatical sense as well as changing the meaning to be more useful; I wonder whether there was one there at some stage which got lost in the writing process.

Currently, though, essentially the same problem applies to remarks. You can't safely rule that a violation of 73D2 has occurred without overwhelming evidence, since to do so would be an accusation of cheating.

You may not ...

You may not lead out of turn, either, but do you always accuse someone who does of cheating? Of course you can rule under Law 73D2, and of course you do not need to accuse them of cheating. Judgement rulings do not need "overwhelming evidence", just a judgement decision as to what seems to have happened.

[campboy]

bluejak, on 2011-July-26, 06:23, said:

You may not lead out of turn, either, but do you always accuse someone who does of cheating? Of course you can rule under Law 73D2, and of course you do not need to accuse them of cheating. Judgement rulings do not need "overwhelming evidence", just a judgement decision as to what seems to have happened.

If I rule that someone has led out of turn, I do not rule that they have deliberately led out of turn, and I have never had a case where I even suspected that they had. Law 73D2, on the other hand, is a law which requires intent: to rule that the player has broken 73D2 is to say that he has deliberately attempted to deceive. Deliberately breaking a law is cheating. Unintentionally breaking a law, such as mistakenly leading out of turn, is not cheating.

[blackshoe]

The TD gathers evidence. He judges based on the evidence. If he judges that whatever happened was probably (preponderance of the evidence, remember, not "beyond reasonable doubt") an attempt to deceive, that is a violation of Law 73D2, and he adjusts the score (Law 73F). He need not call the player a cheat — maybe the player didn't realize what he was doing was illegal. If he is going to ignore the evidence, and rule, effectively or literally, that 73D2 was not breached, out of fear that the player will be upset at "being called a cheat", then he should give up directing; he doesn't have the guts for it.

[campboy]

It is not just a question of whether a player is upset at being called a cheat (or "probably a cheat", if you prefer), but of whether he is entitled to take legal action against you as a result.

[blackshoe]

Maybe so, and I submit that the US is a much more litigious country than England. Still, I stand by what I said.

[bluejak]

campboy, on 2011-July-26, 08:01, said:

If I rule that someone has led out of turn, I do not rule that they have deliberately led out of turn, and I have never had a case where I even suspected that they had. Law 73D2, on the other hand, is a law which requires intent: to rule that the player has broken 73D2 is to say that he has deliberately attempted to deceive. Deliberately breaking a law is cheating. Unintentionally breaking a law, such as mistakenly leading out of turn, is not cheating.

Deliberately breaking a law is not cheating. It has to be more than that, for example, knowledgeably. If a player deceives but does not realise that it is just not permitted and very wrong then we adjust, but it is not cheating.

Are you trying to tell me that a lead out of turn is cheating if it is deliberate? I don't think so. Anyway, you have to define deliberate: people get confused, people do things intentionally but without realising the situation, people do all sorts of things. That does not make them cheats.

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-July-27, 05:14, said:

Are you trying to tell me that a lead out of turn is cheating if it is deliberate? I don't think so. Anyway, you have to define deliberate: people get confused, people do things intentionally but without realising the situation, people do all sorts of things. That does not make them cheats.

I agree. Few habitual law-breakers are cheats.

Posters like lamford strip simple basic cases with agreed facts to their bare essentials. Rarely is there agreement on what ruling is appropriate. Often, as here, experienced directors cannot even agree as to whether there has been an infraction. Pity the plight of the poor player until 2018,

[Zelandakh]

campboy, on 2011-July-26, 10:37, said:

It is not just a question of whether a player is upset at being called a cheat (or "probably a cheat", if you prefer), but of whether he is entitled to take legal action against you as a result.

This is just plain silly. When you enter a tournament you agree to abide by the CoC. This would be the same as a footballer taking out a lawsuit against a referee upon receiving a yellow card for "simulation".

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-July-27, 05:14, said:

Deliberately breaking a law is not cheating. It has to be more than that, for example, knowledgeably. If a player deceives but does not realise that it is just not permitted and very wrong then we adjust, but it is not cheating.

Are you trying to tell me that a lead out of turn is cheating if it is deliberate? I don't think so. Anyway, you have to define deliberate: people get confused, people do things intentionally but without realising the situation, people do all sorts of things. That does not make them cheats.

OK, many people don't know the rules, but some do. If you ruled that Blackshoe had breached Law 73D2, you'd be saying that he'd cheated, wouldn't you?

[campboy]

bluejak, on 2011-July-27, 05:14, said:

Deliberately breaking a law is not cheating. It has to be more than that, for example, knowledgeably. If a player deceives but does not realise that it is just not permitted and very wrong then we adjust, but it is not cheating.

Are you trying to tell me that a lead out of turn is cheating if it is deliberate? I don't think so. Anyway, you have to define deliberate: people get confused, people do things intentionally but without realising the situation, people do all sorts of things. That does not make them cheats.

I agree with your first paragraph; I intended "deliberately breaking a law" to mean ... well, just that. Of course a player may do something deliberately, not realising that in so doing he is breaking a law; that is a different thing. If the player does not believe he is breaking a law -- whether because he is unaware of the law or because he thinks it is his turn to lead -- then he has not deliberately broken the law. He was trying not to break the law; he broke it without intending to; he did not break it deliberately.

[aguahombre]

I don't think anyone has properly credited Lamford for his title to this thread, with all its possibilities for interpretation.