[lamford]

---

This was a well-defended hand in both rooms in the Brighton Mixed Pivot teams yesterday, won by Bletchley Park, just ahead of Hut 6. The event was marred by a world-record 38 PPs over the 57 tables in play, for breaches of Law 7C on one board, the one above.

Prof Dr Peter Hilton, whose main claim to fame was composing the 51-letter palindrome, "Doc note, I dissent. A fast never prevents a fatness. I diet on cod", also excels at the 52-card game, and was partnering Peggy Erskine-Tulloch.

He picked up his hand, bottom card first, and saw: 2♦ 4♥ J♥ 7♠ 6♠ T♠ 9♦ 3♣ J♦ 8♣ J♣ K♣ K♦. He reasoned that the previous person had not shuffled the hand after playing it, as he had found was the case with 39% of people at Brighton, including, from his own observations, West at table 7, from where the boards came. He thought that a diamond lead had lost, and thefore declarer had the queen or partner would have won and continued the suit with declarer ducking. Now declarer had won seven major suit tricks on which his hand had discarded the nine of diamonds and the three of clubs, and the defence had won the last four. He therefore led a club, and this turned out to be successful.

However the board was flattened by Sir Stuart Milner-Barry, for Hut 6, partnering Alan Turing.

He picked up 3♣ J♣ K♣ 8♣ 6♠ 4♥ J♥ 2♦ 7♠ T♠ 9♦ J♦ K♦ and it was clear that the defence had begun with four rounds of clubs, and the defence had won the king of diamonds at trick 13. He also led a club and the board was flat.

How do you rule, and what action do you take?

[campboy]

I think this comes under accidental UI from another table (16C1, noting that the "as by" means the list is not exhaustive), and fine both Wests for failing to notify me. I suppose I could adjust the score at both tables too, but it will be flat either way.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2012-August-16, 06:26, said:

I think this comes under accidental UI from another table (16C1, noting that the "as by" means the list is not exhaustive), and fine both Wests for failing to notify me. I suppose I could adjust the score at both tables too, but it will be flat either way.

Both the players were quoted this rule, and they responded that they did not "accidentally receive the information" but deliberately sought it out, and therefore 16C1 does not apply, as while I agree that the list is not exhaustive, the prerequiste for it being classified as extraneous information from other sources is that it was accidental.

[lamford]

I think that Law 16C1 should be corrected to delete the word "accidental".

[Quartic]

Using the information available in the order of the cards picked up is a violation of 16A3. Intentionally doing so is a violation of 72B1, so I give a procedural penalty to both players.

16A:
Players’ Use of Information

• A player may use information in the auction or play if:
  
  • it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or
    
  • it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or
    
  • it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or
    
  • 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.
  
  
• 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.
  
• No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).
  
• If there is a violation of this law causing damage the Director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12C.

72B1:
A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

[axman]

Quartic, on 2012-August-16, 23:57, said:

Using the information available in the order of the cards picked up is a violation of 16A3. Intentionally doing so is a violation of 72B1, so I give a procedural penalty to both players.

16A:
Players’ Use of Information

• A player may use information in the auction or play if:
  
  • it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or
    
  • it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or
    
  • it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or
    
  • 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.
  
  
• 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.
  
• No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).
  
• If there is a violation of this law causing damage the Director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12C.

72B1:
A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

An anecdote:

Occasionally, I discern from the order of the cards that I remove from the board what the previous round’s contract was [not that such is particularly useful given the lack of skill used to arrive at the result]. On one such occasion that was memorable I removed my cards from the board and discerned [a] that the cards had not been mixed and [b] that the previous contract had been 4S making 9 tricks. Not that I expended any effort [which I didn’t] I began wondering if it would be worth it to try to figure out if there was any profit in the idea. And before anything came of my pondering I had arrived at 3S passed out, making ten tricks when it happened that I had found a 1% lie of the opponents….. the only plus score my direction.

Now, what is clear is that by law I must be tarred and feathered and the infringing E that did not mix the cards must be penalized one board.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2012-August-16, 19:00, said:

Both the players were quoted this rule, and they responded that they did not "accidentally receive the information" but deliberately sought it out, and therefore 16C1 does not apply, as while I agree that the list is not exhaustive, the prerequiste for it being classified as extraneous information from other sources is that it was accidental.

The receipt of the information was still accidental, since they couldn't do anything to make the previous holder of the hand fail to shuffle it. The use of it was deliberate.

[lalldonn]

lamford, on 2012-August-16, 19:00, said:

Both the players were quoted this rule, and they responded that they did not "accidentally receive the information" but deliberately sought it out, and therefore 16C1 does not apply, as while I agree that the list is not exhaustive, the prerequiste for it being classified as extraneous information from other sources is that it was accidental.

Were they being serious? I hope not...

[barmar]

lalldonn, on 2012-August-17, 14:23, said:

Were they being serious? I hope not...

Do you think anything in this thread actually happened?

[lalldonn]

Good point, then feel free to interpret as "was that potential counter-argument intended to be one that would be taken seriously?"

[lamford]

Quartic, on 2012-August-16, 23:57, said:

<snip>it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations <snip>

It is clear that inspecting the cards in accordance with 7B2:
2. Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen;after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards.
... is a legal procedure authorized in these laws

Any deductions about the previous contract made from such inspection is authorized, as it clearly and absolutely arises from the legal procedures authorized in these laws. In fact from one of the most fundamental and basic ones, of looking at your cards before bidding!

As the Laws currently stand, any deductions made from inspecting the faces of the cards is authorized. And this post answers just about all the other postings.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-August-17, 14:38, said:

Do you think anything in this thread actually happened?

Maybe several thousand times. Why do you think the requirement to shuffle the cards before returning them to the board was introduced?

[semeai]

lamford, on 2012-August-16, 05:24, said:

Prof Dr Peter Hilton, whose main claim to fame was composing the 51-letter palindrome, "Doc note, I dissent. A fast never prevents a fatness. I diet on cod"

Wow, that's the best palindrome I've ever seen.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2012-August-17, 20:17, said:

It is clear that inspecting the cards in accordance with 7B2:
2. Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen;after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards.
... is a legal procedure authorized in these laws

Any deductions about the previous contract made from such inspection is authorized, as it clearly and absolutely arises from the legal procedures authorized in these laws. In fact from one of the most fundamental and basic ones, of looking at your cards before bidding!

As the Laws currently stand, any deductions made from inspecting the faces of the cards is authorized. And this thread answers just about all the other postings.

The information arises from an illegal procedure followed at the previous table, when someone put their cards back in the board without shuffling them.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2012-August-18, 00:25, said:

The information arises from an illegal procedure followed at the previous table, when someone put their cards back in the board without shuffling them.

It does as well, I agree. But the test for whether the information is authorized is whether it arises from the legal procedure followed, not whether it also arises from the illegal procedure. If someone hacked in to the EBU computer, found the pdf file of the next session, memorised the boards, and averaged 88%, none of his or her information would arise from a legal procedure, so is unauthorized. In our example, the information that an unsuccessful opening lead of a small diamond was made at another table arises from the inspection of the faces of these cards as well as from the conclusion that the previous incumbent of my "seat" did not shuffle.

And information is available from the order of the cards, even if the other seat did shuffle, and is clearly authorized. For example, if your hand contains as two consecutive cards, SQ SA, then the most likely scenario is that you (or partner) took a successful spade finesse at some point in the play, and then cashed the ace of spades. And the shuffle did not separate the two cards. Professional Blackjack players know that a triple stripped riffle shuffle only separates about 75% of cards, and I did not observe many professional dealers in the Brighton Congress. So I would conclude:

a) The king of spades is onside, or partner has it
b) Our side was declarer
c) In the hand declarer will play on spades himself at some stage.

The above information could be invaluable, and clearly is authorized from the legal procedure of inspecting the faces of the cards.

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you

[barmar]

lamford, on 2012-August-18, 04:56, said:

It does as well, I agree. But the test for whether the information is authorized is whether it arises from the legal procedure followed, not whether it also arises from the illegal procedure.

16C1 says that this information is unauthorized -- he "accidentally receives information about a board he is playing or has yet to play". The director should be called so he can decide if the information prevents the board from being played normally.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-August-18, 08:17, said:

16C1 says that this information is unauthorized -- he "accidentally receives information about a board he is playing or has yet to play". The director should be called so he can decide if the information prevents the board from being played normally.

But 7B2 says it is authorised. Do you think the information is unauthorized if the cards were shuffled at the previous board? And I do not think the information is "accidentally received". It is received because the Laws do not require the person to shuffle repeatedly and incessantly. Are you saying that the information that the probability of a 4-3-3-3 distribution and a 4-4-3-2 distribution is higher from a hand-shuffled deal is unauthorised, because someone has received accidental information? I would not agree in either case. It arises from the lawful provisions of the Laws and is authorised.

[barmar]

7B2 just says you're entitled (actually required) to know what cards your hand contains before bidding. It doesn't say anything about the order that the cards were played at a previous table, which might be inferred from the order they were in when you took the cards from the board.

16C1 says that information about how the board was played at another table is extraneous. It doesn't specifically mention this inference, but gives a number of examples, and I think we can easily conclude that this inference fits in with them. As this is more specific than 7B2, I think it takes precedence.

While the laws don't require "incessant" shuffling, they do require shuffling before returning the cards to the board. Even a small amount of shuffling should be enough to prevent the next player from reproducing the entire play of the hand. Some cards may retain their play order, but the next player would have a hard time telling precisely which cards are still in order and which aren't. It certainly won't be obvious, as it is if you have an early claim and the player leaves his hand totally sorted. Specifically, consider the hands from the OP -- if the player had simply cut his hand and swapped the two portions before returning the cards to the board, the next player wouldn't be able to tell which was the first card played.

As far as it being accidental, that's from the point of view of the player receiving the information. They had nothing to do with the previous player not sorting their cards. How is this any different from the other examples given in 16C1? If a player overhears talk at another table, that's accidental on his part -- they were talking too loudly, so he couldn't help but hear it.

The point about frequency of distributions after poor hand shuffling is interesting. I'd say that it's not specific enough to meet the criteria of 16C1. It's statistical information about all the boards, not about that particular board.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-August-20, 21:06, said:

Even a small amount of shuffling should be enough to prevent the next player from reproducing the entire play of the hand.

I would agree. However I would also say that even a large amount of shuffling is not enough to prevent the next player from getting some information about the play of the hand. I did some tests at home, and found that I guessed some information about the last hand 50% of the time, shuffling much as people do after a hand is played. The most common information I obtained was that if three cards of the same suit were consecutive after shuffling, they were trumps over half the time. Declarers play three consecutive rounds of trumps far more often than three consecutive rounds of a side suit. The second most common piece of information related to two consecutive honour cards, the smaller of which was lower in the slot. Over 90% of the time this meant that the first honour did not lose the trick to the person over the honour. Of course, sometimes they came together because of the shuffle, but far more often they were not separated by it.

Is all this information authorised? If not, then the TD should be called every other hand, and the board is usually unplayable.

[gnasher]

If you really think you risk obtaining useful information from the sequence of the cards your pick up, why not just give them a thorough shuffle before you look at them?