[barmar]

Heinlein is simply wrong. It's contradicted by the simple fact that we can have conversations, since "everyone knows" the meaning of the words we all use.

Another example: Everyone knows OJ did it. The police simply couldn't prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-October-10, 09:26, said:

Heinlein is simply wrong. It's contradicted by the simple fact that we can have conversations, since "everyone knows" the meaning of the words we all use.

Another example: Everyone knows OJ did it. The police simply couldn't prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

Every mathematician "knows" that the Goldbach Conjecture is true, that every even integer greater than two is the sum of two prime numbers. But mathematicians have never been able to prove it, so that it remains a "conjecture". You have a "conjecture" that "deliberately looking at the hands before play" is cheating. The game is governed by laws, and no law prevents this, so it is just "conjecture".

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-October-10, 10:08, said:

Every mathematician "knows" that the Goldbach Conjecture is true, that every even integer greater than two is the sum of two prime numbers. But mathematicians have never been able to prove it, so that it remains a "conjecture". You have a "conjecture" that "deliberately looking at the hands before play" is cheating. The game is governed by laws, and no law prevents this, so it is just "conjecture".

This is actually a useful analogy.

Mathematics is a very special field, where rigorous proofs are necessary. If it's not proven, it's still suspect.

The rest of life is not so black and white, and we don't depend on absolute proofs. We send people to prison and even impose the death penalty based on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", and civil lawsuits are decided on "preponderance of the evidence".

In science we make hypotheses, and then do experiments to see if they confirm or refute the hypothesis. The more experiments that confirm it, the more we believe it's true. Statements can even be "mostly true" -- Newton's laws of motion are close enough to truth in the range of speeds and gravitational force that we encounter in daily life, we only need to worry about Einstein's laws or relativity in more extreme circumstances. Scientists never prove anything absolutely, but the fact that all our devices work is strong confirmation that we understand most of the laws of nature (when things fail it's almost always due to implementation failures, not misunderstanding the underlying principles).

And the use of natural languages is even less strict. We learn what words mean, and what all the unspoken implications are from the way they're used, by induction from living in a society of speakers and writers. There are few written rules (the ones we're taught in grade school are mainly just general guidelines), yet almost all of us figure out how things work (the ones who don't are often diagnosed with some cognitive defect, such as autism). A foreigner armed with a translation dictionary would be almost hopelessly lost in all but the simplest conversations ("Ou est le biblioteque?"), and a Martian would be have even more trouble. There's nuance galore from the choice of words and grammar, but you'll never find these details in a dictionary.

Laws, both in games and in real life, are written in human languages, so the issues I mentioned in that last paragraph apply. It would be great if they could be written consistently and unambiguously, but that's simply not the nature of language. They need to be understood in context, and occasionally we have to resort to the "spirit" of the laws.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-October-11, 12:29, said:

There's nuance galore from the choice of words and grammar, but you'll never find these details in a dictionary.

There is no nuance or ambiguity whatsoever in the use of the word "accidentally" in 16D, and if you banned someone for "deliberately" obtaining UI from another table, this would be overturned by a court. I have had four speeding tickets cancelled on technicalities. One speed limit was in a round border instead of a square border and no variation was permitted. One "Gatso" had a gap of 3 years and 1 month in its calibration record, one month over the limit. Another "NIP" was not sent in good time (it was wrongly sent to the previous owner) and for a fourth they did not or could not provide a photograph. If we don't apply unambiguous laws honestly and fairly, then rulings will be overturned on appeal. The example in 16D is a pretty ridiculous error by the WBFLC, but hey, what's new?

In my supervised play group for beginners, I usually prepared set hands which I had obviously seen in advance. Often there was an odd number of players, and I played to ensure everyone had a game. I did not breach Law 16D, because I "deliberately" looked at the hands before play - in fact I prepared them.

[blackshoe]

You know, the purpose of these forums is primarily to provide aid to directors and players who are unsure of a ruling. These esoteric discussions about … whatever it is they're about, I'm not sure, don't seem to further that end. Not telling everybody to shut up — yet. Just… consider where you want to go with this discussion.

[pran]

lamford, on 2018-October-11, 14:21, said:

In my supervised play group for beginners, I usually prepared set hands which I had obviously seen in advance. Often there was an odd number of players, and I played to ensure everyone had a game. I did not breach Law 16D, because I "deliberately" looked at the hands before play - in fact I prepared them.

May we please be excused from this nonsense?
I hope you are aware of

Law 6D2 said:

Unless the purpose of the tournament is the replay of past deals no result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck or if the deal has been imported from a different session. . . . . .

(my enhancement)
This makes the procedure you describe perfectly legal and Law 16D is most certainly no objection. The fact that your actions here are deliberate is completely irrelevant.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-October-11, 14:21, said:

In my supervised play group for beginners, I usually prepared set hands which I had obviously seen in advance. Often there was an odd number of players, and I played to ensure everyone had a game. I did not breach Law 16D, because I "deliberately" looked at the hands before play - in fact I prepared them.

Supervised play like this is generally not considered "real bridge" and routinely violates many of the laws. Players consult their notes or ask for assistance from the teacher, sometimes the game is played with all the cards visible, many irregularities are ignored (would you penalize a student if their question could be overheard by the other players?). Do you even keep score in a game with prepared hands like this? There's little point in using it as an example in a discussion about how to enforce the laws.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-October-11, 19:28, said:

Supervised play like this is generally not considered "real bridge" and routinely violates many of the laws. Players consult their notes or ask for assistance from the teacher, sometimes the game is played with all the cards visible, many irregularities are ignored (would you penalize a student if their question could be overheard by the other players?). Do you even keep score in a game with prepared hands like this? There's little point in using it as an example in a discussion about how to enforce the laws.

It seems that I was taken seriously regarding the beginner's class. Perhaps I should add "(joke)" at the end of any parts of any posts which are in jest. We do though have a serious and important issue as to whether who the declarer was at the previous table is AI or UI. Weejonnie seems to concur that it is AI, but others would "send the miscreants packing". I think people using this information are just taking into account the "traits of the opponents" as to who plays slowly or quickly, and the conclusion that RR must have been declarer is a valid one, especially if he could not have been declarer on the first of the two-board rounds and the second board arrived late. And we do have a word that was accidentally included in the laws in 2017, which should be deleted in 2027, unless some think it should remain.

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2018-October-12, 10:40, said:

It seems that I was taken seriously regarding the beginner's class. Perhaps I should add "(joke)" at the end of any parts of any posts which are in jest. We do though have a serious and important issue as to whether who the declarer was at the previous table is AI or UI. Weejonnie seems to concur that it is AI, but others would "send the miscreants packing". I think people using this information are just taking into account the "traits of the opponents" as to who plays slowly or quickly, and the conclusion that RR must have been declarer is a valid one, especially if he could not have been declarer on the first of the two-board rounds and the second board arrived late. And we do have a word that was accidentally included in the laws in 2017, which should be deleted in 2027, unless some think it should remain.

We have a law that was 'accidentally' included in the 2017 laws and which should be deleted in 2027 : Law 15B

[pran]

lamford, on 2018-October-12, 10:40, said:

It seems that I was taken seriously regarding the beginner's class. Perhaps I should add "(joke)" at the end of any parts of any posts which are in jest. We do though have a serious and important issue as to whether who the declarer was at the previous table is AI or UI. Weejonnie seems to concur that it is AI, but others would "send the miscreants packing". I think people using this information are just taking into account the "traits of the opponents" as to who plays slowly or quickly, and the conclusion that RR must have been declarer is a valid one, especially if he could not have been declarer on the first of the two-board rounds and the second board arrived late. And we do have a word that was accidentally included in the laws in 2017, which should be deleted in 2027, unless some think it should remain.

Would you please care to elaborate which "word" you are referring to and where in the laws this word was included in the 2017 laws?

weejonnie, on 2018-October-12, 13:20, said:

We have a law that was 'accidentally' included in the 2017 laws and which should be deleted in 2027 : Law 15B

No. Law 15 actually covers two separate issues:

Law 15A applies in the (rare) case when a player is holding cards that he has picked up from a wrong board while the other players have taken their cards from the correct board. Thus this law involves two different boards.

Law 15B applies when a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round, thus involving one (but incorrect) board only.

[lamford]

pran, on 2018-October-12, 16:05, said:

Would you please care to elaborate which "word" you are referring to and where in the laws this word was included in the 2017 laws?

The word "accidentally" in Law 16D is not necessary and adds nothing; in fact it detracts. And I don't know how long it has been there; it was certainly in Law 16C in 2007. You might know when it was introduced.

[pran]

lamford, on 2018-October-12, 17:08, said:

The word "accidentally" in Law 16D is not necessary and adds nothing; in fact it detracts. And I don't know how long it has been there; it was certainly in Law 16C in 2007. You might know when it was introduced.

Is 1933 (The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge as adopted by The United States Bridge Association, also approved by The American Bridge League and The American Whist League) early enough for you?
(The first internationally adopted laws were agreed upon in 1936.)

They all included phrases equivalent to "accidentally" in Law 16D

The purpose is (obviously) to distinguish between accidental happenstances and deliberate activities, considering deliberate activities unthinkable for honest players.

[sanst]

pran, on 2018-October-13, 01:45, said:

The purpose is (obviously) to distinguish between accidental happenstances and deliberate activities, considering deliberate activities unthinkable for honest players.

That might be so, and I never doubt honesty without proof to the contrary, but, as lamford wrote, ‘accidentally’ doesn’t add anything and we all think that you shouldn’t use any previous information about a board you still have to play.

[pran]

sanst, on 2018-October-13, 02:29, said:

That might be so, and I never doubt honesty without proof to the contrary, but, as lamford wrote, ‘accidentally’ doesn’t add anything and we all think that you shouldn’t use any previous information about a board you still have to play.

Honestly (!) I have a BIG problem understanding why the word "accidentally" should be removed. Will a removal improve the law in any way?

[sanst]

pran, on 2018-October-13, 04:24, said:

Honestly (!) I have a BIG problem understanding why the word "accidentally" should be removed. Will a removal improve the law in any way?

Does it add anything? If so, what? If not, get rid of it for clarity’s sake. I’ve been an editor in my time and from professional experience can tell you that a text usually gets better understandable if superfluous words are removed. In literature that can be quite different, but not in the laws.

[barmar]

I think "accidentally" is deliberate. If it happens accidentally, the TD tries to rectify it and no aspersions are cast on the player's ethics. If a player does it deliberately, they're a cheater and we need to deal with it as a disciplinary matter at a higher level. The Laws don't generally address this type of misconduct.

[pescetom]

pran, on 2018-October-10, 06:06, said:

four???

Is it maybe ten?
Even two would be an absurd lapse of time, considering how bad the laws are and how rapidly the context is evolving (internet, electronic play, need to make the game comprehensible and attractive to young players, growing awareness of ethical problems, etc).

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2018-October-13, 14:22, said:

Is it maybe ten?
Even two would be an absurd lapse of time, considering how bad the laws are and how rapidly the context is evolving (internet, electronic play, need to make the game comprehensible and attractive to young players, growing awareness of ethical problems, etc).

Why don’t you write a good set of laws. Stating “how bad the laws are” is nonsensical. It has taken many decades to come to the result we have now, there have been many extremely serious discussions about the text, a lot of not completely stupid people have spent days and years thinking about the best solution to the problems that can arise and the members of the WBFLC are the first to admit that there are faults, unclear passages and what more have you in the laws. But your statement is a gross misrepresentation of the reality and an insult to those who have put some very serious effort in the law book. If you don’t like it, find another game which will suit you better.

[pran]

pescetom, on 2018-October-13, 14:22, said:

Is it maybe ten?
Even two would be an absurd lapse of time, considering how bad the laws are and how rapidly the context is evolving (internet, electronic play, need to make the game comprehensible and attractive to young players, growing awareness of ethical problems, etc).

Yes, the intention of WBFLC is to have revision of the laws every ten years.

And about the word "accidentally" in Law 16D: I suddenly realized that during my 38 years (now) as certified Director I have had incidents when an announcement to all players about a board yet to be played at several of the tables was necessary. (Remember that we usually play the same board at all tables more or less simultaneously during the same round. I have been involved in events with more than 100 tables. Agreed - it takes a lot of duplicated copies.)

Remove the word "accidentally" from Law 16D then each and and every player who hears such an announcement about a board should notify the Director forthwith that he has received such information?

I think we better leave the word "accidental" where it is, without it the risk is imminent that some SB starts quarreling.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-October-13, 14:15, said:

If a player does it deliberately, they're a cheater and we need to deal with it as a disciplinary matter at a higher level.

The problem is that if the player "does it" deliberately, then they are not committing any infraction, so there is nothing to deal with. You can tell them that the law is wrong, and they are not supposed to be doing it deliberately either; they will respond "how was I supposed to know that?" but you cannot penalise them for wrongly thinking that the event is a double dummy competition. And on pran's point that there might be an announcement about a board due to be played. That announcement will not give any information about the bidding, play, or composition of the hands, otherwise it cannot be played. Any other announcement will not be "as by" the examples in 16D, so will not apply. Nothing either of you have written remotely explains why "accidentally" is needed, and it is just a blunder. I do agree with sanst that much effort has gone into trying to make the laws correct, and I hope this forum has helped and will help.