Slow double

[nige1]

When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo or the like of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

Actually, 73D1 doesn't saying anything in itself about "could have known". That's in [73F]. This is the law that leads to Law 12 — we don't need 12A1 at all. This law has several parts: there must have been a violation of an earlier provision of Law 73 (73D1, in our case), there must have been damage to "an innocent opponent" (whatever that means :unsure:), an innocent player must have drawn a false inference, and the offender "could have known…" All of those parts have to be demonstrated. I also think that given Law 73F, Law 12B2 precludes simply jumping from 73D1 to 12A1. 73F provides rectification for a violation of 73D1 (when the criteria of 73F are met). We apply that rectification, or none.

Blackshoe has found another route through the law-book but is it applicable here? It was partner not an "innocent" opponent whose actions were affected

[blackshoe]

Good point, Nigel. Guess I should go back and read the entire thread before I post.

 

Maybe later. :ph34r:

[bluejak]

73D1 (second sentence), leading to 12A1?

That is exactly the advice I gave on the New Zealand website. :D

[bluejak]

Other than the fact that anyone who has played bridge for more than a week "could know" that an irregularity could work to his benefit, how is this a "could have known" situation?

 

Maybe I'm being too easy, but this strikes me as an example of the old Kaplan idea, now deprecated, of deciding what you want to do, and then finding a law to support it.

A player has a hand where he wants parter to pass his penalty double. Having been playing bridge for more than a week, and seeing players pulling slow doubles often being ruled against, it seems obvious that a slow pass will be more likely to be passed by an ethical partner. Therefore a player could have known that a slow pass would disadvantage opponents: he would have to have very little idea whatever of UI positions not to see this.

 

Mind you, I have no idea where could have known comes into it: Law 73D1 [second sentence] gives a requirement that players have to follow. In the cited case, it was not followed, therefore we apply rectification. Since there is no rectification given in any other Law, Law 12A1 applies.

 

I also think that given Law 73F, Law 12B2 precludes simply jumping from 73D1 to 12A1. 73F provides rectification for a violation of 73D1 (when the criteria of 73F are met). We apply that rectification, or none.

I do not see how Law 73F applies. Where does the innocent opponent's actions come into it? It is partner who is affected.

[blackshoe]

This thread is already too long. I've lost track of what it's about. So I don't know where 73F comes into it. And I'm too tired to reread the whole thing. So I'm bowing out. Just disregard my previous posts.

[Cascade]

That is exactly the advice I gave on the New Zealand website. :D

 

Really?

[jallerton]

Mind you, I have no idea where could have known comes into it: Law 73D1 [second sentence] gives a requirement that players have to follow. In the cited case, it was not followed, therefore we apply rectification. Since there is no rectification given in any other Law, Law 12A1 applies.

 

"Could have known" comes into it, because that is the expression used in Law 23:

 

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

 

That was an infraction of Laws 73A1 and 73B1 and also Law 73A2 (South's double was not made "without undue hesitation").

 

The player "could have been aware" that this irregularity could well damage the opposing side, so it is Law 23 which tells us to adjust.

 

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

 

It seems to be that because the application of Law 23 has provided indemnnity to the non-offending side, Law 12A1 does not apply, technically speaking.

[nige1]

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

"Could have known" comes into it, because that is the expression used in Law 23: That was an infraction of Laws 73A1 and 73B1 and also Law 73A2 (South's double was not made "without undue hesitation"). The player "could have been aware" that this irregularity could well damage the opposing side, so it is Law 23 which tells us to adjust. It seems to be that because the application of Law 23 has provided indemnnity to the non-offending side, Law 12A1 does not apply, technically speaking.

Directors lose their way unless guided by law-experts like jallerton and Poky. This demonstrates how inadequate the sign-posting is in the law-book. I hope that by 2018 or 2028, the laws are supplemented by official flow-charts, decision-tables, and expert-systems. This is a good idea even if, as I hope, the rules are also radically simplified and clarified.