[blackshoe]

peachy, on Jun 23 2010, 06:24 PM, said:

phil_20686, on Jun 23 2010, 01:37 PM, said:

Wikipedia quotes law 16 as:

Please understand that Wikipedia articles can be written by anybody and its texts and articles can be edited, expanded, shortened, and changed by anybody. For bridge laws, go to a legitimate source.

As it happens, wikipedia has accurately quoted the first part of the 1997 Law 16.

[gnasher]

pran, on Jun 23 2010, 11:29 PM, said:

That it was an intentional (or deliberate) action of course.

Any such action for the apparent purpose of communicating to, or obtaining information from the other side of the screen defies the purpose of the screen and as such must be considered illegal.

Can you quote the law or regulation (outside Australia) that makes it illegal?

[pran]

gnasher, on Jun 24 2010, 08:14 AM, said:

pran, on Jun 23 2010, 11:29 PM, said:

That it was an intentional (or deliberate) action of course.

Any such action for the apparent purpose of communicating to, or obtaining information from the other side of the screen defies the purpose of the screen and as such must be considered illegal.

Can you quote the law or regulation (outside Australia) that makes it illegal?

Laws 73 and 74 should make it generally clear.
The applicable regulation on screens should include a point on communication across the screen.

[gnasher]

pran, on Jun 24 2010, 08:52 AM, said:

Laws 73 and 74 should make it generally clear.

I'll take that as a "no" then.

Quote

The applicable regulation on screens should include a point on communication across the screen.

I agree that the screen regulations should include this. But in the WBF and the EBU they don't, so far as I can see.

[pran]

gnasher, on Jun 24 2010, 09:05 AM, said:

pran, on Jun 24 2010, 08:52 AM, said:

Laws 73 and 74 should make it generally clear.

I'll take that as a "no" then.

Quote

The applicable regulation on screens should include a point on communication across the screen.

I agree that the screen regulations should include this. But in the WBF and the EBU they don't, so far as I can see.

Our regulation does

[gnasher]

pran, on Jun 24 2010, 09:07 AM, said:

Our regulation does

Good. Unambiguously setting out what is and is not allowed is much better than just assuming that it's obvious, or relying on some distorted or fallacious interpretation of the laws.

[bluejak]

No doubt. But deciding what to do with the actual Laws and regulations is what these forums are about, ok the first three, despite several recent posts of what would be better. Of course unambiguous Laws and Regulations covering every single possible event would be better. However, saying so will not get us any forrarder in deciding matters where there is no such unambiguous Law or Regulation covering the situation cited in an OP.

[dburn]

blackshoe, on Jun 23 2010, 12:55 PM, said:

I'm no expert on the use of screens, and I don't wish to enter this long (and rather silly, imo) debate on the meaning of "intently", but it seems to me that the one of the purposes of the screen is to prevent you from seeing the mannerisms of either player on the other side. I would not look favorably on a player who attempted to circumvent that purpose, whatever "intently" means.

Oh, it is never silly to attempt to work out what the words in the Laws mean. It may be fruitless, because once you have worked them out there is a tendency for people to say "that is all very well, but it is obvious that when we used a word with meaning X we actually intended meaning Y".

But in this case there isn't really a problem - "intently" is the adverb from "intent", and "intent" as an adjective means [per the OED] "having the mind strenuously bent upon something; earnestly attentive, sedulously occupied, eager, assiduous; bent, resolved." Confusion with the notion of "purpose" (per "intentional" as opposed to "accidental") is just that - confusion.

The Laws prohibit you from looking at an opponent "with your mind strenuously bent upon something" - in this case, discovering something about his cards that may assist you in the play. It does not matter for how long you look, nor for how long your mind is bent (yes, I know, but spare me the jokes). You may not do it at all, let alone peer under a screen to do it.

[gnasher]

dburn, on Jun 25 2010, 11:42 PM, said:

But in this case there isn't really a problem - "intently" is the adverb from "intent", and "intent" as an adjective means [per the OED] "having the mind strenuously bent upon something; earnestly attentive, sedulously occupied, eager, assiduous; bent, resolved." Confusion with the notion of "purpose" (per "intentional" as opposed to "accidental") is just that - confusion.

The Laws prohibit you from looking at an opponent "with your mind strenuously bent upon something" - in this case, discovering something about his cards that may assist you in the play. It does not matter for how long you look, nor for how long your mind is bent (yes, I know, but spare me the jokes). You may not do it at all, let alone peer under a screen to do it.

Not having a large enough house for the full OED, I have to make do with the NSOED. This offers two related but distinct meanings:

NSOED said:

Intent: a
1. Having the mind concentrated on something; engrossed in an activity, etc; firmly resolved on a purpose.  (Foll by on, to do, upon.)
2. Of the faculties, a look, etc, directed with strained attention; intense.

Since we're dealing with a look rather than an activity, and the rules use the adverb "intently" rather than "intent upon", it seems clear to me that the second meaning is the one intended in the Laws.

Without screens, it is certainly possible to glance at an opponent's face intentionally, but not intensely or with strained attention. I think that you can do the same through the aperture of a screen too. But I'd welcome a statement from the L&EC that the former is illegal, which would make the latter illegal too.

[mrdct]

dburn, on Jun 25 2010, 05:42 PM, said:

The Laws prohibit you from looking at an opponent "with your mind strenuously bent upon something" - in this case, discovering something about his cards that may assist you in the play. It does not matter for how long you look, nor for how long your mind is bent (yes, I know, but spare me the jokes). You may not do it at all, let alone peer under a screen to do it.

Is there a difference between being "strenuously bent" and just "bent"?

Bent or otherwise, if the reason you are looking at your opponents is to pick-up some sort of read or tell, you are cheating.

[blackshoe]

Absent screens, I can see the expressions and body language of my two opponents without turning my head. Even if I do turn my head for a quick glance (as opposed to looking "intently", I do not see why that should be considered "cheating".

[mjj29]

mrdct, on Jun 28 2010, 01:04 AM, said:

Bent or otherwise, if the reason you are looking at your opponents is to pick-up some sort of read or tell, you are cheating.

Bullshit. The laws specifically allow using opponents mannerisms "at your own risk" and specifically prohibits them from misleading you via them in sensitive situations. What is not allowed is an action likely to put off the opponents - quite rightly.

[campboy]

I agree with the last four posters; so does my dictionary, which defines "intent" in the context of a look as "firmly fixed; determined; concentrated" and helpfully points out that the other meaning of the adjective would normally be followed by "on".

My dictionary also defines "strenuous" as "requiring or involving the use of great energy or effort" or "characterized by great activity, effort, or endeavour". I suppose one might make the argument that you need to be "strenuously bent" mentally as well as physically to look under the screen, but without screens it doesn't fit at all.

[Vampyr]

Isn't standing up in your seat, resting your whole upper body and your head along the table with your face right up against the aperture, likely to "cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game" with respect to your screen mate? So it seems to me that this maneuver is forbidden by L74A2.

[gwnn]

I think it causes annoyance to both opponents and embarrassment to your partner as well

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on Jun 28 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

standing up in your seat, resting your whole upper body and your head along the table with your face right up against the aperture

I think anyone who did that should be admired for their courage.

[phil_20686]

bluejak, on 2010-June-22, 08:20, said:

These are all done with intent, ie intently, so not allowed.

This is not the meaning of intently. `with concentration', or `fixated on' would be better definitions. You cannot open a door `intently', but you can intend to open a door.

[Vampyr]

wank, on 2010-June-23, 06:39, said:

i think anyone who doesn't have a quick look at the opps when they lead the jack from AJT towards dummy's Kxx is living in a parallel universe.

Gosh, I try not to do this. I guess I am putting myself at a disadvantage...