[lamford]

An (imaginary) player sneaks into the (imaginary) director's room at a club or event and prints out a copy of the next session's hands which he reads and destroys, unbeknown to his (imaginary) partner. Fortunately there is CCTV, so when he scores 80% instead of his usual 40% you investigate and discover the reason. Under which Law can you punish him? It appears from 16A1(d) that the information can be used by the player, and under 16C1 he does not have to tell the TD as he deliberately obtained the information, not accidentally. A quick look through the Laws did not find a clear rule.

Common sense dictates that the TD should have unlimited powers in such a case, but it would be nice if the Laws provided that power. Removing "accidentally" from 16C1 would be a start.

This post has been edited by lamford: 2014-October-25, 19:41

[Trinidad]

The Law is not an ass: It is designed to deal with irregularities, and it is specifically not designed to deal with deliberate cheating.

As a TD, I would file a police report. Obviously, this depends on local laws, but things like unlawfully gaining acces, trespassing, information theft, etc. are criminal offenses in most places. The fact that the perpetrator stole bridge data is hardly relevant. In a similar way, the Laws do not tell the TD what to do when West pulls out a Magnum (not the ice cream version) and shoots North. I would prefer to keep it that way.

Rik

[blackshoe]

While I have some sympathy for the police report thing, I think there's a difference between "breaking and entering" and "sneaking into the director's room", which may well have been wide open at the time.

I would use Law 91B: "The Director is empowered to disqualify a contestant for cause, subject to approval by the Tournament Organizer." I don't think I need any more than that.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-25, 11:46, said:

While I have some sympathy for the police report thing, I think there's a difference between "breaking and entering" and "sneaking into the director's room", which may well have been wide open at the time.

That is why it depends on local laws. I don't know how this is in the state of New York, but in the Netherlands, it is a crime to be in a place where you are not allowed to be, even if the door was wide open.

So, if "sneaking into the director's room" is a crime, let the police deal with it. The bridge Laws are not designed to deal with that.

Rik

[blackshoe]

IANAL, but that's not how I understand New York (or indeed, US in general) law. Breaking and entering is a felony. Trespassing is usually a misdemeanor. But I envision one of our local clubs, where the "director's room" - the one with all the hand records, and a computer and printer, so it fits this scenario — is right off the playing room, and I don't think anyone has ever suggested that players are not allowed to be in there. In fact, players go in there all the time, before and after the session (I don't think I've ever seen anyone go in there during a session, unless there was a director call and the director has not responded - but even then the room is small enough that folks just stand in the doorway). I think you'd get laughed out of court here - if it even got that far.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-25, 11:46, said:

I would use Law 91B: "The Director is empowered to disqualify a contestant for cause, subject to approval by the Tournament Organizer." I don't think I need any more than that.

I would sympathise with that approach, but I would normally require a breach of at least one of the Laws before I did that. In this case, the player does not appear to have even breached the etiquette. You might disqualify a contestant, for example, because you are opposed to dumping, while the RA does not have a regulation on the subject, "For cause" means "with justification" and I think it requires the breach of at least one law, rather than a breach of the manner in which the TD or TO thinks the game should be played. Perhaps there should be a general clause of "behaviour that the TD considers to be cheating."

And I do not agree with Trinidad's approach at all.

[1eyedjack]

Assuming that Law 91B supports disqualification in this case, I would not regard mere disqualification from this event as being sufficient sanction. So back to square 1. Or square 2, at least.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2014-October-25, 07:07, said:

A player sneaks into the director's room at a club or event and prints out a copy of the next session's hands which he reads and destroys, unbeknown to his partner. Fortunately there is CCTV, so when he scores 80% instead of his usual 40% you investigate and discover the reason. Under which Law can you punish him? It appears from 16A1(d) that the information can be used by the player, and under 16C1 he does not have to tell the TD as he deliberately obtained the information, not accidentally. A quick look through the Laws did not find a clear rule. Common sense dictates that the TD should have unlimited powers in such a case, but it would be nice if the Laws provided that power. Removing "accidentally" from 16C1 would be a start.

TFLB L16C1 said:

When a player accidentally receives unauthorized 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, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information ....

I agree with Lamford that law 16C1 should lose the word "accidentally". Given the ingenuity of players, it would be unrealistic to expect law-makers to anticipate all possible cheating methods but it seems reasonable that they should prohibit the more common and obvious kinds such as this. Rule-makers for other games might address major oversights like this, as soon as they become aware of them. In the context of bridge we cling to the hope that law-makers get round to correcting such anomalies in 2017, 2027, or whenever.

A fudge is possible. It would be against the spirit of the law, but a case like this could be allocated to a director who hasn't yet attended the TD mind-reading course. Such a director, when presented with the CTV footage, could honestly claim to be unsure whether or not the culprit's actions were accidental.

[broze]

Do the laws also prohibit the competitors tearing up the cards?

[gnasher]

I have two answers:

(1)
6B: The cards must be dealt face down, one card at a time, into four hands of thirteen cards each; each hand is then placed face down in one of the four pockets of the board.
6E4: The Director may require a different method of dealing or pre-dealing to produce the same wholly random expectations as from A and B above.

Intentionally looking at the hand records in advance (a) is a deviation from the method required by the director, and (b) makes the player's expectations non-random, in that it's not equivalent to having the four hands dealt face-down and then placed face-down in the pockets. This is an irregularity, so we can take away the offender's result under Law 23. It's also an infraction, so we can penalise him for it.

(2) In case you find (1) a bit thin:
91B: The Director is empowered to disqualify a contestant for cause ...
It doesn't say "for an infraction", it just says "for cause". This is a cause.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2014-October-25, 15:26, said:

I have two answers:

(1)
6B: The cards must be dealt face down, one card at a time, into four hands of thirteen cards each; each hand is then placed face down in one of the four pockets of the board.
6E4: The Director may require a different method of dealing or pre-dealing to produce the same wholly random expectations as from A and B above.

Intentionally looking at the hand records in advance (a) is a deviation from the method required by the director, and (b) makes the player's expectations non-random, in that it's not equivalent to having the four hands dealt face-dA REASown and then placed face-down in the pockets. This is an irregularity, so we can take away the offender's result under Law 23. It's also an infraction, so we can penalise him for it.

(2) In case you find (1) a bit thin:
91B: The Director is empowered to disqualify a contestant for cause ...
It doesn't say "for an infraction", it just says "for cause". This is a cause.

The director did authorise the deviation whereby the cards were dealt by a hopper and a bridge dealing program. So there was no breach of either 6B or 6E4. And if you think "for cause" means "for any reason the director considers a reason", and the Laws meant that, then there would be no need for them to include "for cause". I interpret "for cause" to mean "any infraction that the director considers sufficiently serious". But first there has to be an infraction. It is exactly like the cricket authorities disqualifying Rose for declaring (in a cricket match) at 1 for 0. Legal opinion at the time was that if he had sued he would have won, but Somerset decided against that action.

[hrothgar]

It would seem plausible that looking at the hands in advance would violate law 40C3a

Quote

3. (a) Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not
entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory,
calculation or technique.

One might argue that looking at the hand records in advance is an aid to technique...

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2014-October-25, 12:44, said:

And I do not agree with Trinidad's approach at all.

That is fine. I hope it is clear that I do not agree with your approach at all: Trying to use the Laws for something that they aren't meant for.

If you have ever watched the Red Green show, you will know that his "Any tool can be the right tool" approach is rarely successful.

So, use the bridge Laws for what they are meant for: to regulate the game played by honest, fair players who make honest mistakes. Do not abuse the Laws to deal with cheats. Just throw them out of your club. You may not (should not) find any justification for that in the Laws, but you don't need it.

The process of dealing with cheats is entirely different from the process of dealing with players who broke the Laws. Law breakers will face the TD, a local AC and perhaps a national AC. The consequences of their actions are score adjustments and PPs, i.e. pretty much limited to roughly the value of the baord that they played. Cheaters will face a disciplinary committee. The consequences of their actions are much bigger: expulsion, suspension of league membership.

Rik

[broze]

lamford, on 2014-October-25, 15:45, said:

I interpret "for cause" to mean "any infraction that the director considers sufficiently serious".

I believe if the laws had meant "infraction" they would have said just that. There seems no need to abandon the natural meaning of the word 'cause' and no justification for your interpretation. The addition of "for cause" presumably just prevents the director from disqualifying people for no reason.

However I do agree with you that 16C1 would be better off without "accidentally".

I have sympathy with Trinidad's approach as well, because presumably since most regulatory authorities will have provisions for what to do with cheaters there is no need for that to be addressed in the laws if the director can look elsewhere for punishment.

This post has been edited by broze: 2014-October-25, 16:28

[lamford]

hrothgar, on 2014-October-25, 16:16, said:

It would seem plausible that looking at the hands in advance would violate law 40C3a

One might argue that looking at the hand records in advance is an aid to technique...

The player thought of that; which is why he memorised the hands and then destroyed them! Note that the Law only forbids aids during the auction and play periods, not beforehand ...

[hrothgar]

lamford, on 2014-October-25, 16:42, said:

The player thought of that; which is why he memorised the hands and then destroyed them! Note that the Law only forbids aids during the auction and play periods, not beforehand ...

And if I can give him electroshock prior to the start of the event, I am fine with that line of reasoning.

The act of memorizing the hands provides him with an aid to technique during the play.

[lamford]

hrothgar, on 2014-October-25, 16:54, said:

And if I can give him electroshock prior to the start of the event, I am fine with that line of reasoning.

The act of memorizing the hands provides him with an aid to technique during the play.

The act of memorizing the chance of a 6-0, 5-1, 4-2 or 3-3 break gives him an aid to technique during the play ... And memorizing something cannot be interpreted as an aid to memory ... Unless you argue that he is not entitled to use his brain as that is an aid to memory. I am sure that TDs can do better than using 40C3a!

[hrothgar]

lamford, on 2014-October-25, 16:57, said:

The act of memorizing the chance of a 6-0, 5-1, 4-2 or 3-3 break gives him an aid to technique during the play ...

True. With this said and done, information that the King of Spades is stiff, offside, is an even better aid to technique.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2014-October-25, 15:45, said:

The director did authorise the deviation whereby the cards were dealt by a hopper and a bridge dealing program. So there was no breach of either 6B or 6E4.

The director's chosen method also involved the boards not being looked at by any of the players in advance. That's why he put them in "the director's room" rather than posting the hand records on the club noticeboard. The player's actions constituted a deviation from that method, and are therefore an irregularity.

Quote

I interpret "for cause" to mean "any infraction that the director considers sufficiently serious".

Perhaps you do, but unless you're going to offer a linguistic, legal or precedential justification for this interpretation, I don't think it carries much weight.

[blackshoe]

Lots of messages I have not yet read - I'm responding to Lamford's response to my "I would use Law 91B".

It seems to me that the fact that the laws do not themselves explicitly address cheating does not mean that we should let players get away with it.