[weejonnie]

/* Information from another table is not UI - it is EI. Players do not have to consider logical alternatives etc */

Correct procedure

"Director please.... can I have a word with you away from the table? ..... I noticed that board #? was completed really quickly at another table."

Ruling: OK - Law 16D2 applies

2. If the Director considers that the information would likely interfere with normal play he
may, before any call has been made:
(a) adjust the players’ positions at the table, if the type of contest and scoring permit, so that
the player with information about one hand will hold that hand;
(b) if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for those contestants;
© allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he
judges that the extraneous information affected the result;
(d) award an adjusted score (for team play see Law 86B).

Pretty sure the TD would apply 16c under these circumstances. Note that it is NOT for the players to say that they can't go on, nor is it an infraction for a player to make use of the EI under Law 16A1d.

[RMB1]

The information is not authorised and nobody can use the information (Law 16A). If the information is used then the TD may have recourse to Law 16D.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-June-10, 10:32, said:

Here, a player has extraneous information from the speed with which the board was passed. That's not a circumstance in the list of examples, but it is a list of examples; it's not exhaustive. This law doesn't really give him a choice. He should call the director as soon as he gets the board. "Should" here means not doing it is an infraction. A player who thinks "maybe I should just keep my mouth shut and it won't be a problem" is not thinking clearly.

Do you call the TD every time you take a hand from the board and find that it's already sorted into suit (which often implies either a pass-out or early claim, but sometimes people sort their hand during the post mortem)?

I've only done this if it happens a second time in a session, so the TD can remind the player at the next table that they're supposed to shuffle their hand before returning it to the board.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2019-June-12, 08:29, said:

Do you call the TD every time you take a hand from the board and find that it's already sorted into suit (which often implies either a pass-out or early claim, but sometimes people sort their hand during the post mortem)?

I've only done this if it happens a second time in a session, so the TD can remind the player at the next table that they're supposed to shuffle their hand before returning it to the board.

I haven't had it happen lately. I've had hands that appear to have been poorly shuffled. I didn't call the director. I also didn't waste time trying to figure out what the sequences of cards in the hand might signify.

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2019-June-11, 16:20, said:

/* Information from another table is not UI - it is EI. Players do not have to consider logical alternatives etc */
...
nor is it an infraction for a player to make use of the EI under Law 16A1d.

RMB1, on 2019-June-12, 04:44, said:

The information is not authorised and nobody can use the information (Law 16A). If the information is used then the TD may have recourse to Law 16D.

Can someone clarify further?

Looking at Law 16A1, the only element I can see that might allow the use of this EI is 16A1c:

A. Players’ Use of Information
1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:
....
© it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following) or
(d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.


It arises from 16D and is not specified to be unauthorized, so it may be used.
I can't see how A1d can be applied directly to information deriving (at least in part) from legal procedures without first evaluating preclusion of use by applying A1c.

This is all a bit circular. If the intention was to authorize such use then it would certainly have been better to specify this in 16D.

[pran]

pescetom, on 2019-June-12, 10:28, said:

It arises from 16D and is not specified to be unauthorized, so it may be used.

HUH ???
This just doesn't make sense, at least not to me.

Law 16D1 said:

When a player accidentally receives extraneous information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by ....

Law 16D1 uses the term "extraneous information" clearly defining such information as unauthorized for all players receiving it, period.

[pescetom]

pran, on 2019-June-12, 11:38, said:

Law 16D1 uses the term "extraneous information"

Yes

pran, on 2019-June-12, 11:38, said:

clearly defining such information as unauthorized for all players receiving it, period.

Where does it say this?

And why does D2 not make the usual provisions about avoiding use of UI but rather seem to take for granted that the EI is likely be used, to the point where TD might even award an adjusted score before any call has been made?

The goal is to restore normal play, but there is no suggestion that using the EI is any kind of infraction, no trace of the usual UI logic or cross reference to the Laws that enforce it.

[blackshoe]

16D1 says that if a player overhears something about a board he has yet to play from another table, he should notify the Director forthwith. Also, the information is extraneous. Presumably he has this information before he takes his hand from the board in question. 16A1{d} would allow him to use the information if the laws do not preclude him from doing so. Do they? Technically, I don't think they do. At least, I can't find anything that actually says that. So now what? Per 16D2 the Director has several options: he can adjust the players' positions at the table so that the player with information about a particular hand holds that hand. If the information is more general, not about a particular hand, that option is out. He can order the board redealt if the form of competition allows for it. If this option is also out, he has two more: he can allow the board to be played, or he can decide that the information makes the board unplayable and award an adjusted score. If he allows the board to be played, and then judges that the extraneous information affected the result, he adjusts the score. This sounds an awful lot to me like "it's not unauthorized; you can use it, but if later I judge that your use affected the result, I'll adjust the score". So no implication that the information is unauthorized — quite the contrary, in fact. But you still might get an adjusted score.

[pran]

pran, on 2019-June-12, 11:38, said:

Law 16D1 uses the term "extraneous information" clearly defining such information as unauthorized for all players receiving it, period.

pescetom, on 2019-June-12, 11:51, said:

Where does it say this?

Wrong question - you should ask: Where does any law say that "extraneous information is authorized?

The only law I have found that could possibly lead to such understanding is

Law 16A1d said:

[or] it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.

but then that would literally include any extraneous information (whatsoever) as authorized provided it is known by a player before he takes his hand from the board?

My understanding of Law 16A1d is that it does not apply to specific information (e.g. features) about a board yet to be played.

[pescetom]

pran, on 2019-June-12, 23:32, said:

Wrong question - you should ask: Where does any law say that "extraneous information is authorized?

We're going in circles here, like the Law itself.
I agree if would be much better if it clearly affirmed or denied that EI is authorized.

[barmar]

Extraneous information described in 16D2 is not technically "unauthorized information".

EI is actually worse than UI. UI justs provides vague suggestions about partner's hand, while EI is often much clearer. So 16D2 requires the TD to judge whether it's possible to play the hand normally after receipt of EI. It also gives him ways to work around the EI, such as rearranging the players at the table. If there's no workaround, an adjusted score is awarded.

Whether EI is authorized is not really relevant, because we never go into those clauses.

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2019-June-13, 09:23, said:

Extraneous information described in 16D2 is not technically "unauthorized information".

Whether EI is authorized is not really relevant, because we never go into those clauses.

Extraneous information described in 16D2 is not technically "unauthorized information from partner".

Whether EI is authorized is not really relevant, because we never go into those clauses, if the TD is called.

[pran]

RMB1, on 2019-June-13, 10:36, said:

Extraneous information described in 16D2 is not technically "unauthorized information from partner".

Whether EI is authorized is not really relevant, because we never go into those clauses, if the TD is called.

16D2 does not describe any information whether extraneous or unauthorized, it (only) instructs the Director how to proceed when he is informed about extraneous information as described in 16D1.

[barmar]

pran, on 2019-June-13, 11:33, said:

16D2 does not describe any information whether extraneous or unauthorized, it (only) instructs the Director how to proceed when he is informed about extraneous information as described in 16D1.

But none of those instructions include redirecting to the process for handling UI.

[pran]

barmar, on 2019-June-14, 08:46, said:

But none of those instructions include redirecting to the process for handling UI.

See LAW 16 - AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION

Law 16A said:

Players’ Use of Information
1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:
(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or
(b) it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see C); or
© it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or
(d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.
2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations.

It follows by simple elimination that a player may not use any information not listed here, and such information is therefore unauthorized to him.

How the Director shall handle (possible) use of unauthorized information is further described in the remainder of Law 16 and also in laws 81, 82 and 12 as he may see fit.

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2019-June-12, 10:28, said:

Can someone clarify further?

Looking at Law 16A1, the only element I can see that might allow the use of this EI is 16A1c:

A. Players’ Use of Information
1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:
....
© it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following) or
(d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.


It arises from 16D and is not specified to be unauthorized, so it may be used.
I can't see how A1d can be applied directly to information deriving (at least in part) from legal procedures without first evaluating preclusion of use by applying A1c.

This is all a bit circular. If the intention was to authorize such use then it would certainly have been better to specify this in 16D.

So if a pair are leaving the room and talking loudly about a hand, you may use the information you learnt from their comments?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2019-June-14, 16:44, said:

So if a pair are leaving the room and talking loudly about a hand, you may use the information you learnt from their comments?

Generally not, because 16D applies, and the TD would likely judge that it prevents normal play of the hand.

This is why I say that the UI clause doesn't apply -- the TD should prevent you from playing the board at all if you overheard such blatant information about the hand.

But as someone mentioned above, this presupposes that you called the TD to let him know that you heard this, as required by 16D.

[pran]

barmar, on 2019-June-16, 15:21, said:

Generally not, because 16D applies, and the TD would likely judge that it prevents normal play of the hand.

This is why I say that the UI clause doesn't apply -- the TD should prevent you from playing the board at all if you overheard such blatant information about the hand.

But as someone mentioned above, this presupposes that you called the TD to let him know that you heard this, as required by 16D.

Technically: as suggested, not required by 16D
16D is a "should" law.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2019-June-17, 01:55, said:

Technically: as suggested, not required by 16D
16D is a "should" law.

If you're saying that "should" laws are suggestions, not requirements, you need to rethink that position. From the Introduction to the Laws: "Established usage has been retained regarding … “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)…" (The emphasis is mine).

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-June-17, 10:26, said:

If you're saying that "should" laws are suggestions, not requirements, you need to rethink that position. From the Introduction to the Laws: "Established usage has been retained regarding … “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)…" (The emphasis is mine).

In reality we agree, but to me a requirement that is (deliberately) ignored is more often than not penalized.

I am not aware of any law using the word "should" in association with (any variation of) the word "require".