[BLML] Chucking Feat

Hirsch Davis hirsch9000 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 17 22:10:37 CEST 2010

  On 9/17/2010 1:40 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote:
> <Hirsch>
> There is no loophole in your example.
> L16
> C. Extraneous Information from Other Sources
> 1. When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a
> board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong
> hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at
> another table; orby seeing a card belonging to another player at his
> own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified
> forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information.
> You did not notify the Director upon receipt of the information. At the
> time that you made your play, you believed that you had information
> about the hand in question.
> <Lamford>
> The Law does not say "believed he is playing, or believed he has yet to
> play" or "believed he had UI", so I do not think he committed an
> infraction. He clearly did not receive UI about a board he was yet to
> play.
> And there needs to be an infraction to punish him under 72B1.
> And I am playing Devil’s Advocate, of course. I am not in the slightest
> way trying to justify the person’s actions. I am not even sure that
> there is a Law under which you can punish him at all, although of
> course there should be. The Law is just wrongly worded ... yet again.
> _______________________________________________
The Preface to the Laws has changed over the years. The following is 
from the Laws of Contract Bridge, copyright 1927 by the Whist Club of 
New York.

"...Laws are not drafted to prevent dishonorable practice; that they 
cannot accomplish. Ostracism is the only adequate remedy. The real 
object of the laws is to define correct procedure and to provide for the 
situations which occur when a player through carelessness gains an 
unintentional, but nevertheless an unfair advantage..."

While this is not stated as explicitly in today's Laws, I believe it to 
remain true.

If a player attempts to cheat, I'm not going to let it go by because he 
did not succeed. The player in your example deliberately attempted to 
violate several Laws. An accident may have prevented actual violation. 
So what? I'm still going to exercise the authority given to the TD under 
L91 to get the attempted cheater out of the game, and let the C&E 
committee deal with it from there. Fully in the spirit of the original Laws.


More information about the Blml mailing list