[McBruce]

OK, I cave. Reason for asking was that I had this incident pre-typed for a spacefiller in some Daily Bulletins I'll be doing later this month. It won't be hard to add that the tactic is actually illegal.

[Cascade]

Many players keep a personal score sheet.

Is it therefore illegal to fill out or look at your personal score sheet or in teams your score sheet which is frequently kept face up on or near the table since by doing so I can easily and often find out that undertricks are worth 50 or 100 and games make 400 or 600 etc.

[TimG]

Cascade, on Aug 14 2010, 02:01 PM, said:

Many players keep a personal score sheet.

Is it therefore illegal to fill out or look at your personal score sheet or in teams your score sheet which is frequently kept face up on or near the table since by doing so I can easily and often find out that undertricks are worth 50 or 100 and games make 400 or 600 etc.

If it is actually an aide to memory, I would say "yes". For most players it is not an aide to memory. No one who knows the scoring table is going to think down two NV, hmmm, I think we encountered that a while back, let's look at the score card to figure out what it is. Not when they can just do the 50 x 2 math in their head.

Perhaps a more realistic question is whether a player can refer to the IMP table during the auction or play. I think far fewer people have this memorized than have the scoring tables memorized. I could imagine someone wanting to know whether they were getting 8:5 or 9:5 odds for a certain action and wanting to refer to the IMP scale in order to figure out which it was.

[barmar]

I expect that most of the players who are competent to use the odds to that level of precision are sufficiently aware of the IMP table.

[peachy]

barmar, on Aug 14 2010, 10:45 PM, said:

I expect that most of the players who are competent to use the odds to that level of precision are sufficiently aware of the IMP table.

But this is not relevant to the question whether it is illegal to look.

[gnasher]

Both the rules for calculating the score and the IMP table form part of the Laws. Is a player allowed to refer to the Laws during the hand, or to ask the director what a particular Law says?

[pran]

gnasher, on Aug 15 2010, 10:09 PM, said:

Both the rules for calculating the score and the IMP table form part of the Laws. Is a player allowed to refer to the Laws during the hand, or to ask the director what a particular Law says?

A player is definitely not allowed to look up the laws himself, this would be construed as an intentional violation of Law 40C3a (regardless of which law he actually inspected).

He may certainly call the Director for cause and ask whatever question he likes, but the Director should see through this question as an attempt to violate the same law.

If I ever were to be called, apparently for such reason, I would inform the player about Law 40C3a and warn him that any repetition would result in a procedural penalty.

[barmar]

Are players expected to have the Laws memorized in the first place? Even TDs aren't expected to remember all the laws, although it's expedient if they know the most common ones.

Does the prohibition against memory aid really apply when the information isn't supposed to be in your memory?

[pran]

barmar, on Aug 16 2010, 04:37 AM, said:

Are players expected to have the Laws memorized in the first place? Even TDs aren't expected to remember all the laws, although it's expedient if they know the most common ones.

Does the prohibition against memory aid really apply when the information isn't supposed to be in your memory?

For information relevant to the ongoing game - yes. Law 40C3a offers no exception (other than as explicitly permitted by the Regulating Authority).

Could you provide an example of the kind of information that you have in mind?

No player is expected to have the laws memorized, that is one of the reasons why we have Directors.

[duschek]

barmar, on Aug 15 2010, 10:37 PM, said:

Are players expected to have the Laws memorized in the first place? Even TDs aren't expected to remember all the laws, although it's expedient if they know the most common ones.

Does the prohibition against memory aid really apply when the information isn't supposed to be in your memory?

It probably depends on which law. I think players are expected to know the consequences of Law 1 by heart, for example, even if it is a law.

[bluejak]

barmar, on Aug 16 2010, 04:37 AM, said:

Does the prohibition against memory aid really apply when the information isn't supposed to be in your memory?

Are you suggesting that you can remember which Laws you cannot remember and you think a memory aid should be allowed to remember those Laws you cannot remember, while you should not be allowed to remember those Laws you can remember? How about a memory aid to aid your memory of when you can use a memory aid?

[pran]

bluejak, on Aug 16 2010, 10:19 PM, said:

barmar, on Aug 16 2010, 04:37 AM, said:

Does the prohibition against memory aid really apply when the information isn't supposed to be in your memory?

Are you suggesting that you can remember which Laws you cannot remember and you think a memory aid should be allowed to remember those Laws you cannot remember, while you should not be allowed to remember those Laws you can remember? How about a memory aid to aid your memory of when you can use a memory aid?

Very well put!

I loved that

[barmar]

bluejak, on Aug 16 2010, 05:19 PM, said:

barmar, on Aug 16 2010, 04:37 AM, said:

Does the prohibition against memory aid really apply when the information isn't supposed to be in your memory?

Are you suggesting that you can remember which Laws you cannot remember and you think a memory aid should be allowed to remember those Laws you cannot remember, while you should not be allowed to remember those Laws you can remember? How about a memory aid to aid your memory of when you can use a memory aid?

Are we permitted logic aids in interpreting these discussions?

[helene_t]

Yes, you use any aids you fancy while posting on BBF

[bluejak]

What's BBF? This is IBLF on BBO: is BBF a contraction of the two?

Or do you need a memory aid to remember the name of the forum?



Ok, ignore that: I have discovered BBO refer to Bridge Base Forums.

[dburn]

In the final of the Tollemache some years ago (enough years ago that the event was played under the 1997 Laws and not the most recent code), I was in a no-play game. My RHO ruffed a spade at trick n and I overruffed, then at trick n+2 my RHO produced the ace of spades when his partner led that suit.

The Director was summoned, and he instructed that play should continue with the revoke established. He did not inform me that if I were to ruff the ace of spades, the penalty would be one trick (and I would go one down after that penalty was imposed), while if I discarded my remaining loser on the ace of spades, the penalty would be two tricks (and I would make the contract after that penalty was imposed).

Fortunately for the London team I already knew this. I discarded my loser, I made the contract, and our team won a tournament it would not have won had I not been able to remember the Laws.

Is the contention here that had I not known the relevant Law in detail but had been able to recall vaguely that the penalty would be different depending on whether or not I let the ace of spades hold, I would not have been entitled to have Law 64A2 read to me? If so, that contention is in my humble and considered opinion complete and utter balderdash.

[pran]

dburn, on Aug 18 2010, 09:26 PM, said:

In the final of the Tollemache some years ago (enough years ago that the event was played under the 1997 Laws and not the most recent code), I was in a no-play game. My RHO ruffed a spade at trick n and I overruffed, then at trick n+2 my RHO produced the ace of spades when his partner led that suit.

The Director was summoned, and he instructed that play should continue with the revoke established. He did not inform me that if I were to ruff the ace of spades, the penalty would be one trick (and I would go one down after that penalty was imposed), while if I discarded my remaining loser on the ace of spades, the penalty would be two tricks (and I would make the contract after that penalty was imposed).

Fortunately for the London team I already knew this. I discarded my loser, I made the contract, and our team won a tournament it would not have won had I not been able to remember the Laws.

Is the contention here that had I not known the relevant Law in detail but had been able to recall vaguely that the penalty would be different depending on whether or not I let the ace of spades hold, I would not have been entitled to have Law 64A2 read to me? If so, that contention is in my humble and considered opinion complete and utter balderdash.

Law 9B2: No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

It was a Director's error not to inform you of the conditions for the rectification to become either one or two tricks. And the fact that RHO now produced the ♠A and not for instance the ♠2 is completely irrelevant, he should have made you aware of the "wins a later trick with a spade" rule that disappeared from the laws in 2007.

(Law 9B2 was also changed in 2007, but only in form not in reality)

[blackshoe]

You are entitled to ask the TD, and you should not have to ask him, what the ramifications are of an established revoke, and the TD should read out to you Law 64A. You not entitled to pull a law book out of your pocket and look it up yourself. Strange, perhaps, but true.

[dburn]

blackshoe, on Aug 18 2010, 03:50 PM, said:

You are entitled to ask the TD, and you should not have to ask him, what the ramifications are of an established revoke, and the TD should read out to you Law 64A. You not entitled to pull a law book out of your pocket and look it up yourself. Strange, perhaps, but true.

If I am allowed to ask the Director what the ramifications are of an established revoke, why am I not allowed to ask the Director what the ramifications are of going four down doubled non-vulnerable?

At the time, the Director (one of England's very best and an occasional poster to this forum) considered that he should not tell me the ramifications of the established revoke expressly because to do so would constitute an aid to my memory, calculation or technique. Since he didn't actually need to tell me anyway, the point was not pursued.

But it remains the case in my view that if a player wants to know what the Laws say about anything at all, he is entitled to know what they say, and any attempt to find out what they say cannot be considered a breach of Law 40C3a or of anything else. If as pran remarks "no player is expected to have the laws memorized", then if players are expected to abide by the Laws, they should have unrestricted access to them at all times. Anything else is so at variance with the principles of natural justice as to be completely absurd - it's not only strange, it's also false.

[peachy]

dburn, on Aug 18 2010, 04:16 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 18 2010, 03:50 PM, said:

You are entitled to ask the TD, and you should not have to ask him, what the ramifications are of an established revoke, and the TD should read out to you Law 64A. You not entitled to pull a law book out of your pocket and look it up yourself. Strange, perhaps, but true.

If I am allowed to ask the Director what the ramifications are of an established revoke, why am I not allowed to ask the Director what the ramifications are of going four down doubled non-vulnerable?

At the time, the Director (one of England's very best and an occasional poster to this forum) considered that he should not tell me the ramifications of the established revoke expressly because to do so would constitute an aid to my memory, calculation or technique. Since he didn't actually need to tell me anyway, the point was not pursued.

But it remains the case in my view that if a player wants to know what the Laws say about anything at all, he is entitled to know what they say, and any attempt to find out what they say cannot be considered a breach of Law 40C3a or of anything else. If as pran remarks "no player is expected to have the laws memorized", then if players are expected to abide by the Laws, they should have unrestricted access to them at all times. Anything else is so at variance with the principles of natural justice as to be completely absurd - it's not only strange, it's also false.

Dburn makes a valid argument. In the original posted case, the person should then have called director and asked the TD "how much is 3 down doubled". His partner of course is under UI restrictions, right? Whether he asked TD or illegally (IMO) or legally consulted the scoring table?

Perhaps this is something new laws ,whenever they come, could consider: Move the scoring tables to an Attachment or Addendum instead of having them incorporated in the laws themselves. It is an aid memoire.