[peachy]

In another part of these forums, blackshoe posted this accurate and true statement:

Transmission of UI is not in itself an infraction (unless done deliberately with the intent to convey information) so I wouldn't do more than remind his partner of his obligations when in receipt of UI (Laws 16 and 73).


In my view, it is impossible to establish "intent" or "deliberately". A player who had such intent, would not admit it unless he is a beginner who does not yet understand the ethics of the game. And, for the TD's own protection from accusations of cheating, even beginning to establish "intent" or "deliberately" could lead the TD to hot water. Which is why no TD in their right mind would do it.

In effect, the "intent and deliberately" clauses in those laws are meaningless. Perhaps for future editions, those could be somehow separated away into other parts of the laws that discuss this type of grave offenses, or just a footnote added to the UI laws, with link to the "grave offense" laws.

[pran]

peachy, on May 24 2010, 08:11 PM, said:

In another part of these forums, blackshoe posted this accurate and true statement:

Transmission of UI is not in itself an infraction (unless done deliberately with the intent to convey information) so I wouldn't do more than remind his partner of his obligations when in receipt of UI (Laws 16 and 73).


In my view, it is impossible to establish "intent" or  "deliberately".  A player who had such intent, would not admit it unless he is a beginner who does not yet understand the ethics of the game.  And, for the TD's own protection from accusations of cheating, even beginning to establish "intent" or "deliberately" could lead the TD to hot water.  Which is why no TD in their right mind would do it. 

In effect, the "intent and deliberately" clauses in those laws are meaningless.  Perhaps for future editions, those could be somehow separated away into other parts of the laws that discuss this type of grave offenses, or just a footnote added to the UI laws, with link to the "grave offense" laws.

Take a look at Law 73F . The 'could have known' clause goes a long way in relaxing the need to establish intent.

[bluejak]

peachy, on May 24 2010, 08:11 PM, said:

In another part of these forums, blackshoe posted this accurate and true statement:

Transmission of UI is not in itself an infraction (unless done deliberately with the intent to convey information) so I wouldn't do more than remind his partner of his obligations when in receipt of UI (Laws 16 and 73).


In my view, it is impossible to establish "intent" or  "deliberately".  A player who had such intent, would not admit it unless he is a beginner who does not yet understand the ethics of the game.  And, for the TD's own protection from accusations of cheating, even beginning to establish "intent" or "deliberately" could lead the TD to hot water.  Which is why no TD in their right mind would do it. 

In effect, the "intent and deliberately" clauses in those laws are meaningless.  Perhaps for future editions, those could be somehow separated away into other parts of the laws that discuss this type of grave offenses, or just a footnote added to the UI laws, with link to the "grave offense" laws.

It is not really possible to completely separate what is meaningful and what is not, and certainly intent and deliberately are not meaningless. Your presumption that it is impossible to rule on this basis, while a widely held view, is erroneous. Most judgement rulings by TDs are based on preponderance of evidence, but because of the words pran quotes and a similar approach elsewhere, TDs are well able to control somewhat unethical approaches without saying "You are cheating".

Suppose a player says to his partner "Did you really want to play low from dummy?" after declarer has called for a low card, which looks like an idiotic play. If the TD judges that dummy is a beginner, or novice, just learning, he will treat it as UI, and deal with it accordingly. If dummy is a leading international expert playing with a client, the TD will treat it as deliberate communication and deal with it accordingly.

Of course, he might be wrong in both cases. The novice may have understood the rules, and believes he can get away with it because he is known to be a novice. The expert may have had a senior moment, and blurted something out without thinking that he would never normally say. But the TD judges on the preponderance of evidence.

We often read in these forums [fora - what is the plural?] that mind-reading is impossible so should not be required of TDs. But like many definite statements here it is dubious, because it is so ill-defined. Pure mind-reading is, I suppose, impossible, where someone sits in a room, and someone who cannot see him knows what he is thinking. But when two people converse, one can usually deduce what the other is thinking from what he says, what he does not say, how he acts, how he phrases things, how his body reacts, what the situation is and so forth. Good con men do it all the time, and the presumption it is impossible for a TD is far from the truth.

Finally, there is the grave offence separation. Where a player does something somewhat unethical it is only a grave offence when it is part of a series, or pre-planned. Many people have a moment where temptation leads them astray. The punishment should fit the crime, and a single unethical action should not generally or necessarily be treated as grave.

[PeterAlan]

bluejak, on May 25 2010, 05:46 AM, said:

We often read in these forums [fora - what is the plural?] ...

My Chambers (New Edition 1983) gives both "fora" and "forums" as the plural. My OED (not the recent second edition) appears to have nothing to say on the plural, but the various quotations cited to illustrate the use of "forum" contain (without editorial comment) two plural uses, one dating from 1647 and the other from 1858, and both those are "forums".

"Fora" is of course the Latin plural, but I would suggest that "forums" is the natural plural in an English context, and perfectly correct.

PeterAlan

[campboy]

I have seen it suggested by a classicist that one should use "fora" where forum keeps its original Latin meaning, but that "forum" to mean an online message-board is purely an English word and should therefore take the plural "forums".

[gwnn]

only dufi would use fora

(kidding)

[blackshoe]

"The plural of hippopotamus is hippopotami. One yo-yo, two yo-yi. Two jack-i." - Shelly Berman.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on May 25 2010, 03:31 PM, said:

I have seen it suggested by a classicist that one should use "fora" where forum keeps its original Latin meaning, but that "forum" to mean an online message-board is purely an English word and should therefore take the plural "forums".

This seems very sensible.

[dburn]

PeterAlan, on May 25 2010, 09:17 AM, said:

bluejak, on May 25 2010, 05:46 AM, said:

We often read in these forums [fora - what is the plural?] ...

My Chambers (New Edition 1983) gives both "fora" and "forums" as the plural. My OED (not the recent second edition) appears to have nothing to say on the plural, but the various quotations cited to illustrate the use of "forum" contain (without editorial comment) two plural uses, one dating from 1647 and the other from 1858, and both those are "forums".

"Fora" is of course the Latin plural, but I would suggest that "forums" is the natural plural in an English context, and perfectly correct.

PeterAlan

The OED (second edition) does not give "fora" as the plural of "forum", whereas it does give (for example) "curricula" as the plural of "curriculum".

In Roman towns and cities there was generally only one forum - the central meeting place or market place. The exception, of course, was Rome itself - but even there, the area between the Palatine and Capitoline hills was referred to as "Forum Magnum" or simply "Forum", while other locations designated as "forum" were known by a description of the business conducted there ("forum piscarium" was the fish market) or the Emperor in whose honour they were built ("forum Augustum").

This meant that although the plural "fora" existed as a grammatical construct, almost no one ever used it. Whereas there are reasons why certain Latin plurals continue to be used as the Romans used them, there seems to me (and perhaps to the clever men at Oxford) to be no reason why English speakers should use a Latin plural that the Romans did not use themselves.