Difference between Irregularity and infraction - Advice needed
I thought i knew the difference between an Irregularity and an infraction, but having relooked at the definitions I'm not sure I do.
In particular I've been trying (and failing) to come up with an example of an irregularity that is not also an infraction.
An infraction is "a player’s breach of Law or of Lawful regulation" and an irregularity "a deviation from correct procedure". Since correct procedure is enshrined in the laws, the only thing I can come up with is an irregularity not committed by a player - maybe a director's error?
The laws seem quite deliberate in their use of the two terms, so I'm sure I'm missing something.
Help!
Comments
A card exposed when it shouldn't be, without fault on the part of the player concerned (boxed cards, card stuck to another etc.) is surely one example of an irregularity but not an infraction.
Is that not still a breach of law(49)? The definition of infraction does not appear to require intention, just action.
If by boxed cards you mean a card in the hand turned already faced upwards when the hand is taken out of the board, then that is an infraction by the previous player of the hand (like not having 13 cards in a hand).
Law 49 deals with consequences of a factual situation, saying nothing about how the situation came about. I still think that the accidental exposure of a card better fits the definition of irregularity rather than infraction.
Yes, that is what I meant. Of course there is an infraction at the previous table, but there is no infraction at the receiving table.
There is an old WBFLC minute which attempt to distinguish infraction and irregularity by defining infract and infringe. It has been included in the White Book for ten years (8.0.3) - not sure if it helps!
Not it doesn't! I'm not sure why defining infringe helps with the definition of an irregularity. The word infringe only appears once in the laws (72B1).
Unless of course they're equating infringe with irregularity. In that case this minute defines infringe (irregularity) as being included in the definition of infract, when the Laws define it the other way round.
Jeremy I can understand your confusion. However, to start at first principles i think we need to consider the words at the bottom of page 17 of the Laws of Duplicate bridge 2017.
"Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes procedure without suggesting that violation be penalised) “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised),”shall” do (a violation will incur a penalty more often than not) “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”. "
At law 9 it talks about an irregularity and at Law9A5 it mentions an infraction. My reading is that an irregularity includes all the does/should/shall/must. To add to Abbeybears very good example I would say that at one table an irregularity will be the overhearing of a result from another table. That irregularity is reported to the director. The person reporting that irregularity can't be penalised for it because they are the "injured party". If they do not report it and it is later discovered, then they have committed an infraction, because they did not report it to the director, and that infraction could be penalised. The infraction of the overheard information is from another table and has to be dealt with separately.
So in a way we really only need to decide whether the irregularity is a does/should/shall/must situtation and take it from there. As they say with comparable calls an infraction is a subset of an irregularity
Abbeybear, looking at your first post to this thread, how do you do about 40 Words per minute? So quick! so correct! respect.
CMOT_Dibbler
I think the distinction is:
An infraction has an identified offending side, an irregularity does not.
An accepted underbid is an irregularity as it could allow a repeat of a previously made bid. So at that point there is no infraction, but it is irregular?
I think I prefer the idea that infractions are a subset of irregularities (it is hardly possible to define an infraction which is not an irregularity, after all).
So an infraction is exactly what Robin says. An irregularity is anything which has gone wrong, whether or not we know how/who. And it will sometimes be the case that there is an irregularity (but no infraction) at one table caused by an infraction (or perhaps just an irregularity) elsewhere.
Two examples which seem to confuse this point:
Law 9 A 3: Any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent an irregularity...
Does this apply only to irregularities as defined by you and not to infractions?
Law 52 B 2: Every card illegally led or played by the defender in the course of committing the irregularity becomes a major penalty card.
Here we know who has done something wrong, so should it not be termed an infraction, based on the argument that an irregularity is something that 'happens' while an infraction is something that is 'committed'.
Hi Vlad
As an example Law 74 A 2 says that "A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." That paragraph uses the word "Should" which at the introduction to the Laws (page 17) Should is "“should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised). Now we would all like to think that we would try to prevent partner or opponent from doing this. Therefore we can infer that all irregularities (including infractions) can be prevented. It is just a matter of whether the intervention is quick enough to prevent the irregularity. To be honest it is very difficult to think and act in time to do so.
As far as Law 52 B 2 is concerned I think you must read the whole and not take the part out of context. the start of this is law 50 D 1a where the law says "a major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity," So going back to page 17 "“must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed)." Effectively saying that this is beyond an infraction (can't say that I know what that is, but there) but it is still an irregularity. As I and Abbeybear have said all infractions are irregularities but not all irregularities are infractions. I think that at times we might consider that an infraction on one occasion is treated as such but on another occasion is just treated as an inrregularity.
It very much depends on the wording of the law being referred to.
CMOT_Dibbler
Presumably the decisions of the NOS will impact the infraction/irregularity designation.
For example a lead out of turn is an irregularity to start with, the NOS my accept the lead and as such this remains an irregularity. Should the lead not be accepted then it is an infraction and there are consequences (lead restrictions, penalty card etc).
Ditto for bids out of turn. Presumably if the bid is accepted then it is just an irregularity?
I also think that we should recognise that whilst great efforts have been made to improve the language of the Laws, there is some way still to go. I don't believe that every choice of terminology in the Laws between the use of "irregularity" and "infraction" is necessarily intended to be significant. Bear in mind that (whilst translations follow) the core version of the Laws is written in English for an audience that includes both native Anglophones and many, many others. Distinctions obvious to the native Anglophones may not be so clear to some of those others.
I think a significant break in tempo is an irregularity, but not an infraction.
I would agree with that.
What's your basis for saying that? (Other that it seems reasonable, which is not how laws work.)
What's wrong with L73D1?
Peter
Well, it isn't of itself an infraction, because Law 73D1 says so, assuming that none of the following (for example) are engaged:
(a) Law 74B4 - an excessive tank may be prolonging play unnecessarily;
(b) Law 74C7 - a tank for the purposes of disconcerting an opponent;
(c) Law 73E2 - a tank with no demonstrable bridge reason which may constitute an illegal deception.
But it does seem to be undesirable within the meaning of Law 73D1 and therefore arguably a deviation from correct procedure, which is the definition of an irregularity.
JeremyChild: "What's your basis for saying that? (Other that it seems reasonable, which is not how laws work.)"
The common use of that term "break in tempo" indicates that there is a regular tempo of the game, and there are deviations from this. The laws allow that this sometimes happens, but it can cause difficulties for both players and directors. I have to admit I can't find a better law to support this than the one others have suggested.
According to Law 60 A 1 a lead or play out of turn or a premature play is neither an irregularity nor an infraction, it is an offence! '
'Offence' is not included in the list of definitions.
Shouldn't 'break in tempo' apply to the normal tempo of the player concerned? We have a player in our club who plays in the same unvarying tempo no matter what he is holding - he takes the same time to pass with a yarborough as he does to call with a 20 pointer. One can never accuse him of a break in tempo! Only if a player deviates from the tempo with which he has made other bids could he be accused of a break in tempo.