[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2011-July-27, 09:20, said:

OK, many people don't know the rules, but some do. If you ruled that Blackshoe had breached Law 73D2, you'd be saying that he'd cheated, wouldn't you?

Maybe. What if, as is not unusual lately, I was half asleep?

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-27, 12:45, said:

Maybe. What if, as is not unusual lately, I was half asleep?

Then you wouldn't have breached Law 73D2.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2011-July-27, 09:20, said:

OK, many people don't know the rules, but some do. If you ruled that Blackshoe had breached Law 73D2, you'd be saying that he'd cheated, wouldn't you?

No, not necessarily. You really want black and white, and the Laws do not require it, and tournament direction does not require it.

When a person breaches a Law, it may be

• deliberate: he is trying to break the Law
  
• ignorant: he does not know the Law
  
• accidental: he broke the Law accidentally despite knowing the Law
  
• forgetful: he forgot what the Law was momentarily and broke it
  
• trivial: he broke the Law deliberately but considers it trivial: players do this all the time and we do not call them cheats
  
• and so on

Now a simple rule of being a TD is you do not accuse people of cheating. There is no need, except in obvious cases [eg signalling with fingers], so you don't.

When you rule against someone using Law 73D2 you do not accuse them of cheating unless you are a very very poor and incompetent TD. Furthermore, a decision of a breach of this Law is not an accusation of cheating. Look at the list above, for example: only the first one is cheating. The TD does not decide which applies.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2011-July-27, 16:04, said:

Then you wouldn't have breached Law 73D2.

Well, yes, but that wasn't the issue. The issue is that the TD would (presumably) have ruled that I breached Law 73D2.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-July-27, 17:50, said:

No, not necessarily. You really want black and white, and the Laws do not require it, and tournament direction does not require it.

What I'd like is a law that says "If you ask a question which you didn't need to ask, and it misleads an opponent, your score will be adjusted." But I realise that I'm not going to get that, either now or (probably) in 2017.

Even with the most extreme bending of the laws, the best we seem to be able to get to is "If you ask a question which you didn't need to ask, and it misleads an opponent, we will assume that you did it deliberately, and your score will be adjusted."

I realise that you're not responsible for the content of the laws, but I'm astonished that you're apparently happy with this.

Quote

When a person breaches a Law, it may be

• deliberate: he is trying to break the Law
• ignorant: he does not know the Law
• accidental: he broke the Law accidentally despite knowing the Law
• forgetful: he forgot what the Law was momentarily and broke it
• trivial: he broke the Law deliberately but considers it trivial: players do this all the time and we do not call them cheats
• and so on

Now a simple rule of being a TD is you do not accuse people of cheating. There is no need, except in obvious cases [eg signalling with fingers], so you don't.

When you rule against someone using Law 73D2 you do not accuse them of cheating unless you are a very very poor and incompetent TD. Furthermore, a decision of a breach of this Law is not an accusation of cheating. Look at the list above, for example: only the first one is cheating. The TD does not decide which applies.

You may choose not to use the word, but that doesn't change the meaning of the ruling.

You are ruling that the deceit was intentional, because that's what 73D2 says. If it's intentional, it can't be accidental. If the player is Blackshoe, he definitely wasn't ignorant or forgetful of the laws.. That seems to leave us with "deliberate" (unless there's more to "and so on" than I think). So, against Blackshoe, the meaning of your ruling would be "I think that you deliberately broke Law 73D2 in order to gain an advantage."

[Lurpoa]

Bbradley62, on 2011-July-15, 08:25, said:

South is an ass, but is right.

PS: I hope he didn't describe North's 2NT as Jacoby, since his 3♣ rebid is clearly not consistent with that explanation.

♥♥♥
♥I do not like your language.
♥♥♥

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2011-July-28, 01:28, said:

What I'd like is a law that says "If you ask a question which you didn't need to ask, and it misleads an opponent, your score will be adjusted." But I realise that I'm not going to get that, either now or (probably) in 2017.

Even with the most extreme bending of the laws, the best we seem to be able to get to is "If you ask a question which you didn't need to ask, and it misleads an opponent, we will assume that you did it deliberately, and your score will be adjusted."

I realise that you're not responsible for the content of the laws, but I'm astonished that you're apparently happy with this.

Happy? What has happy got to do with it? This is not BLML, nor is it Changing Laws & Regulations. It is a forum to help people on how to rule, and you rule under Law 73D2 and other Laws by not accusing people of cheating. Whether the wording for this is flawed is off-topic for this forum.

gnasher, on 2011-July-28, 01:28, said:

You may choose not to use the word, but that doesn't change the meaning of the ruling.

You are ruling that the deceit was intentional, because that's what 73D2 says. If it's intentional, it can't be accidental. If the player is Blackshoe, he definitely wasn't ignorant or forgetful of the laws.. That seems to leave us with "deliberate" (unless there's more to "and so on" than I think). So, against Blackshoe, the meaning of your ruling would be "I think that you deliberately broke Law 73D2 in order to gain an advantage."

No. I would rule that the balance of evidence suggests it and I rule accordingly. And, of course, I would not put it that way at all.