Re: UI situation -- How do you rule


raija d wrote:
"David Stevenson" <bridge2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VK++N9Kqi83GFwZa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Steve Willner wrote
On Sep 5, 7:18 pm, Ed Reppert <wayfa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One needs a "demonstrable bridge reason" for the question, lest it be
considered illegal deception under law 73E, leading to a score
adjustment under law 73F2.

In regard to the original post, this is also "creative." The bit
about "demonstrable bridge reason" is in L73F2, which refers to
"remark, manner, tempo, or the like." I suppose you could argue that
a question is "the like," though personally I doubt it, but the issue
at hand has nothing to do with deception.

David Stevenson said:
In England there is certainly case law that asking a question comes
under this heading. The strongest 'cause celebre' was when someone led
the K from KQ, which held. Declarer said to his partner "Do you lead the
K from AK?". This player then played another one, "knowing" his partner
had the A, only to find declarer with AJ ......

I agree this has intention to deceive and quite appropriate to have a case
law to stop it. It is similar to asking during RKC sequence (or afterwards)
"does 5H show the queen" while asker himself is holding the queen in his
hand... Intent to deceive is evident (IMO, at least) in this and in your
example case. Moreover, the phrasing of the questions in these two
examples...could be improved.

But I see no intention to deceive in asking at one's own turn about the
opponents' bid(s) in general; a demonstrable bridge reason would be, for
example, to become certain they have a misunderstanding [or don't have one]
and avoid getting a bad score from leading the wrong suit, for example.
That their annoying manner of not knowing what they play, then causes them
to have UI restrictions, is their own fault and the potential asker IMO
should not be put in a position where he cannot try to find out what is
going on in the auction.

I would not ask if opposing bunnies, BTW. What's the point.

Raija

I believe that the operative passage of law with regards to the asking
of questions for the purpose of obtaining an extraordinary result via
an adjusted score/ UI restriction lies in L73A1 and L73B1. They
admonish a player to not communicate with partner other than by call
or play. If there are screens there is no communication with partner
due to the question; without screens there is communication with
partner due to the question.

The conclusion is that the tactic is banned [a violation of] by law.

regards
axman

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Joys and Terrors of reading the Bible
    ... The reality of Conservative Judaism as I was taught it is that most of ... Best regards, ... since you did not comment on anything I said about American law, ... If Joe ate crabs to tick ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Miliband getting shifty
    ... the Lisbon Treaty it cannot pass into law." ... millipede is just another very dishonest socialist slimeball.... ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: OT-Strange Gun Case
    ... Best Regards ... A sting is often law enforcement enticing someone to commit a crime. ... the government acts in an immoral or criminal manner its OK. ... Inciting criminal acts is OK if the government does it. ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: [OT] Speeding --- *snarl*
    ... >> Mitch clearly doesn't feel that she is governed by UK traffic law ... >> appear to regard Old Testament law. ... AND to obey speed limits. ... regards, Ian SMith ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Bid with me
    ... partner will make the winning play. ... Law 73A1 seems to apply here. ... intent, but the player's intent is clearly relevant in many cases. ...
    (rec.games.bridge)