[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2011-July-22, 07:25, said:

Personally (and possibly because I'm often guilty of wandering off-topic), I'd welcome a little more laisser faire from our moderators.

More?

At the moment when a thread wanders off-topic we deal with it in about one case in twenty: are you sure you want more?

I think you get a lot, and sufficient, ‘laisser faire’. But I do think that people who ask questions do get short-changed somewhat by threads that do not answer the question asked, but instead answer, at length, with what they think the answer should be. How about fairness for opening posters?

Actually, I think the simple answer is we have the balance right.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2011-July-22, 12:19, said:

Do the Laws actually forbid asking a question whose sole purpose is to mislead an opponent?

For example, suppose that declarer in the original post had said "I asked about their leads because I wanted to convince East that West had the jack." Which Law would he have broken?

73D2. It's a remark.

[gnasher]

A question is a remark?

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-July-23, 07:42, said:

I don't understand what could be wrong with using Laws 73D2, 73F and 12 ?

The problem is that the list in 73D2 doesn't include questions about the meaning of an opponent's call or play. Someone upthread alluded to the fact that when a list is not intended to be exhaustive, it usually includes a qualifying phrase, such as "or the like", such a phrase being absent from 73D2.

Either 73D2 applies, or it does not. It seems to me the latter, given the paragraph above. If someone wishes to argue that 73D2 does apply, I think he should explain his reasoning. If 73D2 does not apply, then we are left with the question asked upthread: which law?

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2011-July-23, 08:31, said:

A question is a remark?

These days, some seem to think that it is possible to turn a remark into a question merely by adding a question mark on to the end, so presumably a question is a subset of the wider meaning of "remark".

[blackshoe]

What some seem to think is not necessarily true. In this case, I would say definitely not true.

[aguahombre]

Perhaps it is an oversight, perhaps intentional, that 73D2 mentions remarks but not questions.

By any definition I have looked up, a question does not seem to be a type of remark. However, A TD might rule in a different circumstance that something thinly disguised as a question was really a remark and intended to deceive or to disconcert an opponent.

Since the questions by Declarer in the OP were clearly questions, we still cannot find anything in the current Laws for redress when they deceived. And I don't believe for a minute that Gnasher's posts mean he approves of what Declarer did in the OP case or would do it himself.

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-23, 08:36, said:

The problem is that the list in 73D2 doesn't include questions about the meaning of an opponent's call or play. Someone upthread alluded to the fact that when a list is not intended to be exhaustive, it usually includes a qualifying phrase, such as "or the like", such a phrase being absent from 73D2.

Interestingly, Law 73F does include the phrase "or the like".

Quote

Either 73D2 applies, or it does not. It seems to me the latter, given the paragraph above. If someone wishes to argue that 73D2 does apply, I think he should explain his reasoning. If 73D2 does not apply, then we are left with the question asked upthread: which law?

Law 73D2 said:

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

Law 73E said:

Deception
A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience).

Once might reasonably conclude from Law 73E, coming as it does directly after Law 73D2, that the only appropriate method of deceiving an opponent is through a call or play.

In my opinion, if a player asks a question, the only point of which is to mislead an opponent, then the play he subsequently makes is unduly delayed by the question. This means that the play has been made with undue hesitancy, which is a breach of Law 73D2. In this circumstance, Law 73F authorises the TD to adjust.

[aguahombre]

jallerton, on 2011-July-23, 16:18, said:

In my opinion, if a player asks a question, the only point of which is to mislead an opponent, then the play he subsequently makes is unduly delayed by the question. This means that the play has been made with undue hesitancy, which is a breach of Law 73D2. In this circumstance, Law 73F authorises the TD to adjust.

Wow...I love it. A very big stretch to find it, but I love it.

[blackshoe]

A very big stretch indeed. I don't think we can stretch the law this far.

[aguahombre]

Probably not. But it sure would feel better than the stretches to allow corrected IB's to become authorized information, or the OP's caper of declarer to slide ---continuing to refer to declarer as impeccably ethical.

[blackshoe]

The ethics of the game are defined by its laws. The question was legal, therefore not unethical. Whether it's unethical in some wider sense is not relevant to a ruling. As to other "stretches", well, those are questions for another day. And I would not refer to a declarer who asked this question as "impeccably ethical", I'd refer to him as "not unethical according to the laws of duplicate bridge". I'm pretty sure he'd be able to tell the difference.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-23, 18:31, said:

I would not refer to a declarer who asked this question as "impeccably ethical", I'd refer to him as "not unethical according to the laws of duplicate bridge". I'm pretty sure he'd be able to tell the difference.

Exactly.

[jhenrikj]

73E anyone? It's allowed to deceive a player by a call or play....but that should mean that all other types of deceptions is not allowed. If all types of deceptions is allowed then we need no 73F so there must be a reason why only some methods of deception is mentioned there...

[blackshoe]

No thanks. All 73E says is that deception via a call or play alone is okay. It doesn't imply that other forms are not okay.

[jhenrikj]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-24, 01:05, said:

No thanks. All 73E says is that deception via a call or play alone is okay. It doesn't imply that other forms are not okay.

But if all forms of deceptions is ok (excpet for those mentioned in 73D), why do we need a law that specifies some that is ok?

[blackshoe]

Nobody said that all forms of deception not listed in 73D are okay. We are, however, talking about deception via one particular (legal) action — asking a question. Since the action is a priori legal, we would need a law telling us that deceptive questions aren't legal. There isn't one. That says nothing about other forms of deception, nor should it.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-24, 02:59, said:

Nobody said that all forms of deception not listed in 73D are okay. We are, however, talking about deception via one particular (legal) action — asking a question. Since the action is a priori legal, we would need a law telling us that deceptive questions aren't legal. There isn't one. That says nothing about other forms of deception, nor should it.

Allow me an opposing view: Asking a question (or questions) is not generally legal, it is legal when done for a specific purpose: To obtain the correct understanding of opponents' auction (Laws 20F1 and 20F2).

Law 20G1 explicitly prohibits the asking of questions solely for partner's benefit even when the purpose is to obtain the correct understanding of opponents' auction.

IMHO a question is a specific kind of remarks and therefore encompassed in activities listed in Laws 73D2 and 73F. (I believe this is exactly the same view as has been presented by Bluejak.)

It would (clearly to me) be against the apparent intent of Law 73D2 if a player shall be allowed to mislead an opponent with a question on the ground that a question is not a remark nor explicitly listed in Law 73D2.

[blackshoe]

Remark, noun, a written or spoken comment

Comment, noun
a remark expressing an opinion or reaction : you asked for comments on the new proposals.
• discussion, esp. of a critical nature, of an issue or event : the plans were not sent to the council for comment.
• an indirect expression of the views of the creator of an artistic work : their second single is a comment on the commercial nature of raves.
• an explanatory note in a book or other written text.
• archaic a written explanation or commentary.

Question, noun, a sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information

A question is not a remark, opinions to the contrary notwithstanding. You don't get to redefine the language to support a spurious argument.

[axman]

pran, on 2011-July-24, 04:13, said:

Allow me an opposing view: Asking a question (or questions) is not generally legal, it is legal when done for a specific purpose: To obtain the correct understanding of opponents' auction (Laws 20F1 and 20F2).

Law 20G1 explicitly prohibits the asking of questions solely for partner's benefit even when the purpose is to obtain the correct understanding of opponents' auction.

IMHO a question is a specific kind of remarks and therefore encompassed in activities listed in Laws 73D2 and 73F. (I believe this is exactly the same view as has been presented by Bluejak.)

It would (clearly to me) be against the apparent intent of Law 73D2 if a player shall be allowed to mislead an opponent with a question on the ground that a question is not a remark nor explicitly listed in Law 73D2.

I’ll point out that the function of a remark is to draw attention to. It follows that something, whatever else it is, that performs the function of a remark is synonymous with the properties of a remark.

As for a question being a remark. Its primary function is to elicit information. Ancillary to its primary function, it draws attention. In other words being one does not in and of itself exclude it from being also something else [so to speak]. To be insistent, a question, being whatever it is, includes being a remark.