[blackshoe]

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

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.

Precisely.

[blackshoe]

For those who need a specific law or regulation before they get off the pot, the ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations lists, under ethical violations, "Obtaining unauthorized information from hand records of the current session prior to the conclusion of play or hand records of future sessions, except upon express instruction of the Director." The recommended discipline is expulsion from the ACBL. It seems appropriate then, if this happened at a club, to disqualify the player for the specific event, tell him he's no longer welcome at that club, and report the facts to the appropriate person in the ACBL hierarchy - probably the ACBL Recorder, though I'm not certain of that.

I'm pretty sure most other jurisdictions will have similar regulations.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-25, 18:42, said:

For those who need a specific law or regulation before they get off the pot, the ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations lists, under ethical violations, "Obtaining unauthorized information from hand records of the current session prior to the conclusion of play or hand records of future sessions, except upon express instruction of the Director." The recommended discipline is expulsion from the ACBL. It seems appropriate then, if this happened at a club, to disqualify the player for the specific event, tell him he's no longer welcome at that club, and report the facts to the appropriate person in the ACBL hierarchy - probably the ACBL Recorder, though I'm not certain of that.

I'm pretty sure most other jurisdictions will have similar regulations.

Good to see that the ACBL has addressed the issue. I am not aware of a similar regulation in the UK, but there are several posters on here who will know if there is.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2014-October-25, 17:23, said:

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.

The most common definition I can find of "for cause" is "for a legitimate, specific reason". There are other definitions, usually in more specialist areas. A legitimate reason for disqualification suggests there needs to be a breach of some law (which need not be bridge law, but can be club rules or common law).

And I am not arguing for one moment that the person should not be hung, drawn and quartered! And, just as with an imaginary SB, people on here are thinking this really happened. Calling the police, for example. I expect someone actually dialled 101 or 911.

And removing the "accidentally" in 16C1 is obviously an improvement. Currently it is an infraction to accidentally overhear something and not report it, but not an offence to deliberately ask someone about a board (as far as I can see).

[lamford]

hrothgar, on 2014-October-25, 17:01, said:

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

And I always learned that it was the king of clubs that was singleton offside. Maybe it is different in the US.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2014-October-25, 19:16, said:

The most common definition I can find of "for cause" is "for a legitimate, specific reason". There are other definitions, usually in more specialist areas. A legitimate reason for disqualification suggests there needs to be a breach of some law (which need not be bridge law, but can be club rules or common law).

I think that Lamford's is the common-sense interpretation.

Legal dictionary said:

for cause adverb for legitimate reason, for just reaaon, with cause, with justification

The phrase occurs twice in the law book

TFLB L81C5 said:

[The Director's duties and powers normally include] to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side.

TFLB L91B said:

The Director is empowered to disqualify a contestant for cause, subject to approval by the Tournament Organizer.

[Cascade]

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 ...

The player's prior knowledge of the hands is or at least may well be an aid to memory during the play and auction periods.

'Damn i don't remember what card he played - oh but the hand record showed trumps breaking 4=1 so he must have showed out' or similar.

[FrancesHinden]

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

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.

gnasher, on 2014-October-25, 17:23, said:

[/size]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.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, on 2014-October-25, 18:15, said:

Precisely.

Cubed.

The director needs a reason or a justification for disqualification but it doesn't have to be a breach of any specific law. Disqualification from an in-running event can't be appealed, but if the TD says 'you can't play next week' then this is appealable on whether he has a suitable cause or not (appealable to the chief TD).

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2014-October-25, 19:07, said:

Good to see that the ACBL has addressed the issue. I am not aware of a similar regulation in the UK, but there are several posters on here who will know if there is.

For England, you need the disciplinary rules, which are Appendix A of the EBU bye-laws. Anyone accused of breaching them is sent a copy, but they are also freely available on the EBU website.
These define not only the offences (which include your hypothetical case) but how they are prosecuted etc. As the possible sanctions include a monetary fine and a ban from all competition (which might affect someone's livelihood) they have to be robust.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-October-26, 03:21, said:

For England, you need the disciplinary rules, which are Appendix A of the EBU bye-laws. Anyone accused of breaching them is sent a copy, but they are also freely available on the EBU website.
These define not only the offences (which include your hypothetical case) but how they are prosecuted etc. As the possible sanctions include a monetary fine and a ban from all competition (which might affect someone's livelihood) they have to be robust.

This tallies with a colleague's legal interpretation of the expression "for cause", in that a breach of a bye-law is certainly that. Breaches of other laws, such as theft, assault etc, would also be "for cause".

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2014-October-26, 05:04, said:

..... a breach of a bye-law is certainly that.

And, the penalty is farewell to Bridge.

[helene_t]

Sometimes these discussions are absurd. I am waiting for Paul to post a story about a player who was threatened at gun point to open 7nt and then a long discussion about which law deals with it.

So I agree with Rik except that I don't believe the police would bother to deal with it in the Netherlands. Maybe in a low crime country like Svalbard the police would find the resources

[blackshoe]

I was going to ask if Svalbard even has any police, but I see the governor is also the chief of police, so I guess they have at least one.

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2014-October-26, 13:10, said:

So I agree with Rik except that I don't believe the police would bother to deal with it in the Netherlands.

Well ... err ... Rik doesn't believe that either. Blessed is the country where trespassing into the TD's room and stealing hand records is the top police priority.

But that doesn't stop me from filing a police report when I think a crime occurred targeting me or my organization.*

And we fully agree. I find it absurd to look among the revoke laws, proprieties of the game, and descriptions of the TD's responsibilities to find a Law that somehow might say something on how to deal with a cheat. The bridge laws are not meant for dealing with flat out cheating. Disciplinary regulations are. And if a criminal offense occurred, criminal laws should be used to deal with that.

Rik

*I had my bike stolen twice. (I ♥ the Netherlands.) Both times I filed a police report, just because I think it is the right thing to do as a citizen, with no illusions of seeing the bike back. Though one of the bikes is still missing, I had the other back within a week. While I was living in Sweden, I had my car stolen. I had it back in 4 weeks. So, probably I have been lucky, but I don't subscribe to the cynical view that they won't do anything with your police report anyway.

[pran]

helene_t, on 2014-October-26, 13:10, said:

Sometimes these discussions are absurd. I am waiting for Paul to post a story about a player who was threatened at gun point to open 7nt and then a long discussion about which law deals with it.

So I agree with Rik except that I don't believe the police would bother to deal with it in the Netherlands. Maybe in a low crime country like Svalbard the police would find the resources

Svalbard is not a country, it is an integrated part of Norway.

blackshoe, on 2014-October-26, 15:05, said:

I was going to ask if Svalbard even has any police, but I see the governor is also the chief of police, so I guess they have at least one.

Svalbard most certainly has a Governor General whose title is "Sysselmann". He heads the local police department and serves as Notary Public among his duties.

[barmar]

Cascade, on 2014-October-25, 21:24, said:

The player's prior knowledge of the hands is or at least may well be an aid to memory during the play and auction periods.

'Damn i don't remember what card he played - oh but the hand record showed trumps breaking 4=1 so he must have showed out' or similar.

So you're not allowed to remember one thing about the hand because it's an aid to remembering something else about the hand? Does that mean that this is prohibited:

'Damn, I don't remember if he showed out of that suit - oh, but his partner bid the suit and showed at least 5 of them, so he must have showed out.'

[barmar]

broze, on 2014-October-25, 16:21, said:

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

Would it really help? If a player is willing to cheat by looking at the hand records, would you really expect him to follow 16C1 and call the TD to report it?

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2014-October-27, 09:23, said:

Would it really help? If a player is willing to cheat by looking at the hand records, would you really expect him to follow 16C1 and call the TD to report it?

+1

Rik

[1eyedjack]

Even if Law 16C1 could be brought to bear, would you really want to restrict the sanction for a breach otherwise than accidental to the remedy provided in that section?

[broze]

barmar, on 2014-October-27, 09:23, said:

Would it really help? If a player is willing to cheat by looking at the hand records, would you really expect him to follow 16C1 and call the TD to report it?

Well, I don't feel strongly about it. What I really meant was that the word 'accidentally' is at least redundant.

1eyedjack, on 2014-October-27, 12:21, said:

Even if Law 16C1 could be brought to bear, would you really want to restrict the sanction for a breach otherwise than accidental to the remedy provided in that section?

I don't think it would restrict the sanctions to this section. As mentioned above the director could either disqualify the player or appeal to the local regulations to punish the player.