[blackshoe]

I continue to disagree.

[barmar]

blackshoe, did you happen to notice that the definitions of remark and comment are circular? A remark is a comment, and a comment is a remark.

And although a question is literally just a request for information, we know that there are connotations beyond this -- a question also implies that the questioner needs to know the answer (I know there are exceptions, like asking "How are you doing?" in small talk, but I don't think it applies in this context). This comes up frequently in UI situations, where players are prohibited from taking inferences from their partner's questions. Does it makes sense to recognize this in one situation, and ignore it in another?

[blackshoe]

Yes, I noticed.

I would say that a question might imply the questioner needs to know the answer. It might just as likely (or perhaps more so) imply that he wants to know it.

The two situations are significantly different, it seems to me. And deciding that something does not apply is not "ignoring" it.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-24, 04:42, said:

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.

You may be correct purely linguistic, but in that case I may legally call my partner's attention so some important fact during the auction or play by issuing a question in such a way that it cannot be shown to be solely for my partner's benefit?

Also as Declarer I am free to frame a question to opponents in such a way that it almost certainly must mislead?

Do you really appreciate such effects or will you use Laws 73D2 and 73F to stop such cheating - because cheating is what it indeed is?

If you have a different law to apply then fine, but I don't know any.

[lamford]

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

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.

I would say that the purpose of 73D2 is to punish unduly delayed plays where the player is thinking about the play. It cites "thinking with a singleton" as an example. If a question is legal, then the play is not unduly delayed. Adding "or the like" to 73D2 would do the trick, and I think this is just an omission by the drafting committee. The Laws are full of examples where the wording of one clause describing the infraction is not the same as the clause describing the penalty.

And on the actual ruling, I think it is not enough to show that South "could have been aware" the question would mislead. I think his answers are valid; why should he have to look at his spade holding before deciding what question to ask?

[campboy]

jhenrikj, on 2011-July-24, 02:32, said:

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?

On the other hand, if all forms of deception are prohibited (except for those permitted by 73E), why do we need a law that specifies that some are prohibited?

[pran]

lamford, on 2011-July-24, 15:51, said:

I would say that the purpose of 73D2 is to punish unduly delayed plays where the player is thinking about the play.

No, let me remind you that: The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. (From the introduction to the laws)

lamford, on 2011-July-24, 15:51, said:

It cites "thinking with a singleton" as an example. If a question is legal, then the play is not unduly delayed. Adding "or the like" to 73D2 would do the trick, and I think this is just an omission by the drafting committee. The Laws are full of examples where the wording of one clause describing the infraction is not the same as the clause describing the penalty.

And on the actual ruling, I think it is not enough to show that South "could have been aware" the question would mislead. I think his answers are valid; why should he have to look at his spade holding before deciding what question to ask?

The purpose of Law 73D2 is to give TD a legal means for rectification when he finds that a player may have been misled by some improper action by an opponent. Unduly delayed play is handled in Law 74B4

[aguahombre]

So, Lamford used "punish" instead of adjudicate or something else. Perhaps, after all the various threads over the long run, we can agree that we know there are very few laws created for actual punishment in Bridge ---forgive the slips of tongue ---and not have to repeat the preamble each time.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-July-24, 13:08, said:

If you have a different law to apply then fine, but I don't know any.

I don't either. Back in Edgar Kaplan's day (which is long before mine) I understand he used to say "decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to support it". We are, I am told, beyond that now. Which means we should also be beyond stretching the law to try to make it fit the ruling we wish to make.

[gnasher]

If the lawmakers intended or believed that a question was a type of remark, why would they have written, in 73C:

"When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, ..."

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-24, 19:45, said:

I don't either. Back in Edgar Kaplan's day (which is long before mine) I understand he used to say "decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to support it". We are, I am told, beyond that now. Which means we should also be beyond stretching the law to try to make it fit the ruling we wish to make.

Please don't tell me that you want to allow deliberate cheating provided it is disquised as a question? I don't believe it.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2011-July-25, 02:26, said:

Please don't tell me that you want to allow deliberate cheating provided it is disquised as a question? I don't believe it.

If it's permitted by the rules, it's not cheating.

Obviously we all want this to be illegal, and I expect we'd all accept any half-reasonable interpretation of the rules that would make it illegal. However, it's hard to argue with Blackshoe's contention that nobody has produced such an interpretation yet.

There's another option, of course - it could be outlawed by regulation. The EBU regulations come quite close to doing that, but sadly they don't make a definite statement:

EBU Orange Book, 3E6 said:

As well as giving unauthorised information to partner, questions about bidding may mislead opponents, in which case they may be entitled to redress. Similarly, declarer's questions about leads, signals and discards could illegally mislead the defenders. (Law 73F)

[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.

Lets apply this logic to 26B

Quote

B. Other Withdrawn Calls

For other withdrawn calls, declarer may prohibit offender’s partner from leading any one suit at his first turn to lead, including the opening lead, such prohibition to continue for as long as offender’s partner retains the lead.

It says nothing about that we may not choose to require any lead, does that mean that we can do that? I think that when we have a list of what we may do, that is the only thing we may do.

[bluejak]

Having read these replies, I stick by my view, but perhaps I should expand it slightly. If a player says something in the form of a question but intends it as a remark to mislead then it is a remark within the meaning of the Law. You ask a question to elicit a response: if your intention is not to elicit a response, it is not a question, even if its form is that of a question.

Incidentally, there is little point in restating what the Laws are primarily intended to do, since the word 'primarily' is there: thus the Laws have secondary concerns as well, one of which [see Laws 90, 91] is punishment.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2011-July-25, 07:04, said:

Having read these replies, I stick by my view, but perhaps I should expand it slightly. If a player says something in the form of a question but intends it as a remark to mislead then it is a remark within the meaning of the Law. You ask a question to elicit a response: if your intention is not to elicit a response, it is not a question, even if its form is that of a question.

I can buy this argument, I think, but with the proviso that you need more evidence than the mere facts that the question was asked and that an opponent took a wrong inference to rule that the intent was to deceive.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-July-25, 07:04, said:

Having read these replies, I stick by my view, but perhaps I should expand it slightly. If a player says something in the form of a question but intends it as a remark to mislead then it is a remark within the meaning of the Law. You ask a question to elicit a response: if your intention is not to elicit a response, it is not a question, even if its form is that of a question.

Suppose then, that a player asks a question without a bridge reason for do so, but without intending to mislead. Even by your definition, presumably that's not a remark? That is, the question of intent becomes crucial?

Edit: I see that Blackshoe made the same point.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-July-25, 07:58

[bluejak]

If he did not ask the question to elicit a response then it is a remark, not a question.

"I wonder who has the queen of trumps. Pray tell me, do you?" said whimsically to an opponent while gazing into his eyes. It is not really a question because he does not expect a reply. It has the same effect as "I wonder who has the queen of trumps. I wonder whether it is you." said whimsically to an opponent while gazing into his eyes, which is clearly a remark.

[blackshoe]

The manner in which the question is asked is evidence additional to the items I specified, and may be enough.

[gnasher]

What if he asked the question in order to elicit a response, but he had no bridge reason for doing so?

For example, he asked "Would he lead the J from KJ10?" wanting to know the reply, even though he had no bridge reason for asking it. That is, he made an innocent mistake which happened to mislead an opponent.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-25, 07:55, said:

I can buy this argument, I think, but with the proviso that you need more evidence than the mere facts that the question was asked and that an opponent took a wrong inference to rule that the intent was to deceive.

The hands themselves may be that additional evidence. The hand in the OP is an example of this: declarer can tell the answer from his own hand, as well as what the leader's partner might be expecting. So the normal reasons for asking the question are precluded, making deception more likely.