[gordontd]

A player says that he always watches his opponents and partner sorting their hands to get what information he can from them doing this.

Presumably we would all say he can't do that, but which law says so? Note that the auction has not yet begun so the conditions of L74C5 don't appear to have been met.

[aguahombre]

I would call it the auction period, rule accordingly, and let someone else tell me I read extra into 74C5 improperly. Dunno if a Club director has that much leeway, but bring it on

[ArtK78]

The introductory language of Law 16 (1997 laws) reads as follows:

LAW 16 UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION

Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law.

If one considers the manner in which the players sort their hands to be something in the nature of "mannerisms," then it would seem that such information is authorized BASED ON THE MANNER IN WHICH THE OPPONENTS SORT THEIR HANDS. However, trying to obtain information about partner's hand from the manner in which partner sorts his or her hand is not authorized.

Law 16B reads as follows:

B. Extraneous Information from Other Sources

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; or by 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. If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play, he may:

1. Adjust Positions

if the type of contest and scoring permit, adjust the players' positions at the table, so that the player with information about one hand will hold that hand; or,

2. Appoint Substitute

with the concurrence of all four players, appoint a temporary substitute to replace the player who received the unauthorized information; or,

3. Award an Adjusted Score

forthwith award an artificial adjusted score.

An argument can be made that if the laws provide for remedies upon inadvertently obtaining unauthorized information, then it is clear that deliberately attempting to gain unauthorized information from observing the manner in which partner sorts his or her cards requires stronger remedies. As for information obtained from the manner in which the opponents sort their cards, that doesn't seem to be unauthorized information.

Perhaps Law 12A1 applies:

LAW 12 DIRECTOR'S DISCRETIONARY POWERS

A. Right to Award an Adjusted Score

The Director may award an adjusted score (or scores), either on his own initiative or on the application of any player, but only when these Laws empower him to do so, or:

1. Laws Provide No Indemnity

The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent.

I find the conduct discussed in the OP to be sleazy at best. However, in reference to the manner in which the opponents sort their cards, I suppose that any information obtained would be authorized information, but the player should be warned that he can use such information at his own risk. If an opponent were to become aware that his opponent was observing the manner in which he sorted his hand, perhaps that information could be used against the opponent.

[Phil]

Long discussion happening on Bridgewinners regarding "tells".

[semeai]

Phil, on 2012-August-07, 10:47, said:

Long discussion happening on Bridgewinners regarding "tells".

And here's the link

[BunnyGo]

Just to note, "tells" is very different from "clocking the hand".

[billw55]

gordontd, on 2012-August-07, 09:58, said:

A player says that he always watches his opponents and partner sorting their hands to get what information he can from them doing this.

Presumably we would all say he can't do that, but which law says so? Note that the auction has not yet begun so the conditions of L74C5 don't appear to have been met.

Watching ops sort is obviously unethical. Watching partner sort is obviously cheating.

The second is also clearly a violation of law, see law 74C5 in conjunction with law 17A. As director I would gladly penalize the the former as well. I doubt he will get much sympathy from an appeals committee.

[gordontd]

billw55, on 2012-August-07, 11:59, said:

The second is also clearly a violation of law, see law 74C5 in conjunction with law 17A.

L74C5 says "during the auction and play", not during the auction period.

Auction is defined "....It begins when the first call is made." If L74C5 said "auction period" we wouldn't have a problem, but unfortunately it doesn't.

[gnasher]

If the player has already taken his cards out of the board, we can use 16A3 to neutralise any information he obtains. If, however, he cunningly leaves his cards in the board whilst watching everyone else sort, that won't work.

Instead, I think we can use 74C. 74C begins "The following are examples of violations of procedure" (emphasis added). If it's a list of examples, by definition it's not a complete list. That is, there are other things which are illegal but not listed. We can simply say that this is one of those.

In fact, we can use 74C to prohibit anything we want to. That's rather handy, isn't it?

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on 2012-August-07, 10:41, said:

The introductory language of Law 16 (1997 laws) reads ...

You don't have to quote massive chunks of Law at us. We all know where to find them if we need to refresh our memories.

Quote

Perhaps Law 12A1 applies:

12A1 discusses what to do after a violation of law has occurred. Before we can use it, we have to identify the law that has been violated.

[Phil]

BunnyGo, on 2012-August-07, 11:58, said:

Just to note, "tells" is very different from "clocking the hand".

And 'clocking the hand' refers to where a person pulls their cards from, not how they sort them.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-August-07, 14:57, said:

You don't have to quote massive chunks of Law at us. We all know where to find them if we need to refresh our memories.

All the regulars here do, yes. A first time visitor, or even a second or third time visitor, may not.

IMO, it is important that the director making a ruling specify which laws he's applying. There is entirely too much "this is my ruling" and when you ask "which law?", the director gets all huffy. At least in my neck of the woods. It's even more important that people here, where we're trying to educate folks, specify which laws they're applying. If a poster feels that quoting the law will help him make a point, I see no problem with it. Heck, I do it myself!

[blackshoe]

Sometimes I sort my hand one way, sometimes another, sometimes not at all. If you think you can get anything from seeing me do (or not do) that, more power to you — so long as you're not "looking intently".

[iviehoff]

Curiously, although the laws explicitly state that the mannerisms of the opponents are authorised information on which one may base one's decisions, apparently on the same level as legal calls and plays, the standard arrangement of screens prevents or limits one from observing the mannerisms of both one's opponents.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2012-August-07, 14:52, said:

Instead, I think we can use 74C. 74C begins "The following are examples of violations of procedure" (emphasis added). If it's a list of examples, by definition it's not a complete list. That is, there are other things which are illegal but not listed. We can simply say that this is one of those.

In fact, we can use 74C to prohibit anything we want to. That's rather handy, isn't it?

I had had a look at this too, but you may not be surprised to learn that I was uncomfortable with the notion of just making up stuff under this law. It is rather strangely structured though, isn't it, to simply have a list of examples without further explanation? It contrasts with the list in L90B.

I'm beginning to wonder if it's L90 we should be using. Certainly it inconveniences other contestants to be watched as they sort their hands, and if he's delaying taking his hand out of the slot to get around L16A3, then it unduly delays or obstructs the game.

It would all be easier & clearer if L74C5 said "auction period" rather than "auction". Perhaps in 2017.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2012-August-07, 14:57, said:

You don't have to quote massive chunks of Law at us.

More importantly, if chunks of Law are going to be quoted, they should be from the current law book.

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2012-August-08, 03:03, said:

It would all be easier & clearer if L74C5 said "auction period" rather than "auction". Perhaps in 2017.

Can't you just apply the Humpty Dumpty Fudge? You could simply say that the rules have to be interpreted in a way that makes the game playable, and that the phrase "during the auction and play" is generally understood to mean something other than "during the auction and during the play".

This isn't the only place that this phrase is used. Apart from the problem you have pointed out, a literal interpretation of Law 73A suggests that once the bidding is over the defenders can have a discussion about what suit to lead.

[nige1]

Few directors seem to know the laws well enough to rely on memory. More importantly, posters, who quote a law before commenting on it, help ordinary players to derive benefit from reading law-discussions..

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2012-August-08, 04:18, said:

Can't you just apply the Humpty Dumpty Fudge? You could simply say that the rules have to be interpreted in a way that makes the game playable, and that the phrase "during the auction and play" is generally understood to mean something other than "during the auction and during the play". This isn't the only place that this phrase is used. Apart from the problem you have pointed out, a literal interpretation of Law 73A suggests that once the bidding is over the defenders can have a discussion about what suit to lead.

Gnasher's solution to this perennial problem leads to inconsistent rulings and makes a lot of work for directors.. A simpler solution entails some work for the WBFLC. Try to correct anomalies and ambiguities in place. keep publishing new editions of the law-book on the web, for a few weeks, soliciting comment and criticism, until intended meaning becomes clearer..

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2012-August-08, 05:02, said:

Gnasher's solution to this perennial problem leads to inconsistent rulings and makes a lot of work for directors.. A simpler solution entails some work for the WBFLC. Try to correct anomalies and ambiguities in place. keep publishing new editions of the law-book on the web, for a few weeks, soliciting comment and criticism, until intended meaning becomes clearer..

You think it's simple to get the WBFLC to do things differently from how they do them at the moment?