Awareness of Damage

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sh8754dj87643c762&w=s2hjt62dkq2cakt98&n=skqt543ha93dt95c4&e=saj9876hkqdacqj53&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p(forced%2C%20as%20South%20had%20opened%202C%20out%20of%20turn)1sp2cp3c(forcing)p3dp3hp4np5sp6cppp]399|300[/hv] IMP pairs, dealer North, table result NS +50

 

Our friend SB, who was West in this deal from a North London club, was certainly the victim here. South psyched a game-forcing 2♣ out of turn, the TD was called, and West decided not to allow it. North was forced to pass throughout, and EW wended their way to 6♣ by West which went one off on the king of spades lead. Given that there were a string of -1100s and even a sad -1400 for NS after a 2♠ opener by North, SB wanted redress. South argued that he could not possibly have been aware that his infraction would damage the non-offending side, and the psyche of 2♣ was not an infraction. Bidding it out of turn was. West might have allowed the 2♣ bid, but, sadly, North would have bid 2♦ (a major suit positive, after which South bids multi-style) and South would have passed that. South rubbed salt into the wound by pointing out this was an unexpected extra merit to the method, and that West could have disallowed one specific suit being led, which he had indeed been told by the director when ruling on the withdrawn 2♣. He could have prevented a spade lead, rather than preventing the heart lead which he chose, and the contract would have made. He also pointed out that Law 23 only applied to the enforced pass when South could have been aware it would damage the non-offenders. As he said, he was not psychic ... How do you rule?

[iviehoff]

One could have had a similar outcome where South actually has the opening bid he makes out of turn. Mollo probably had his menagerie characters do it from time to time. In such a case one would say that is rub of the green. Does that make the fact make it rub of the green in this case too? I think not.

 

Of course South can have no idea that his actions might result in the opponents bidding to a contract they can't make. But the real damage is that North no longer made an opening bid of a contract that the opponents would penalise heavily. When you have a 1-count, you are of course aware that partner might well bid to something your side can be heavily penalised on, and psyching out of turn prevents that. So I would say that S could well be aware of the damage he caused and apply Law 23.

[aguahombre]

It is with trepidation that I once again enter Lamford's lair. However, Iviehoff's application of L23 seems spot on.

 

L23 does not require the offender to know exactly how the opponents could be ultimately damaged, nor does it require the opponents to state how they could have been damaged. But, certainly preventing his vulnerable partner from a Spade preempt is in the realm of possible motives. The opening lead is not questionable with North's hand, but with some other holdings an intelligent North might well figure out to lead a Spade because of the infraction.

 

As usual, Paul has presented complications to consider. Do we get into South's Final pass? Would a Lightner Double be more likely to cause Declarer to forbid a Spade lead? Is South's awareness of that issue evidence of South's original intent?

[lamford]

Of course South can have no idea that his actions might result in the opponents bidding to a contract they can't make. But the real damage is that North no longer made an opening bid of a contract that the opponents would penalise heavily.

The TD considered that, but as North-South were playing a multi, there was no damage from the lack of an opening bid. Whether South psyched a FG 2♣, and then passed the 2♦ response, showing a major positive, or allowed North to open a multi, and passed that, the opponents would have been in the same position. In fact, they were better placed after 2♣, as they had one more bid, and one more round, available! Also, South knew that if he doubled 5♠, or doubled 6♣, the declarer would prevent a spade lead. He is entitled to make the best of the situation after his 2♣ out of turn has conceded lead penalties. So, I do not agree that South had any way to tell that his psyche out of turn "could well damage the non-offending side". And note the word "well" in the Law. I think that this is interpreted as "more likely to than not" with "reasonably likely" an alternative interpretation. That would be a bizarre judgement to make here. And North can hardly be blamed for fielding the psyche in not doubling 6♣, as he is forced to pass throughout!

 

And as far aquahombre's idea that South might make a Lightner double when West can prevent a specific suit being led, I wonder what he is smoking, as I would like some of it.

[iviehoff]

The TD considered that, but as North-South were playing a multi, there was no damage from the lack of an opening bid.

And by chance no other NS was playing a multi which is why there was that string of -1100s.

 

S's psyche also caters for his partner opening 1N, 2N, 4S, 3S, 1S, etc. That is sufficient for awareness of potential damage. I suppose that if in the present case there is no chance that this NS was ever going for a telephone number, you might just be right. Are we sure that this partnership would routinely pass partner's multi with S's hand? I might check whether on a weighted score there is still damage.

[lamford]

And by chance no other NS was playing a multi which is why there was that string of -1100s.

 

S's psyche also caters for his partner opening 1N, 2N, 4S, 3S, 1S, etc. That is sufficient for awareness of potential damage. I suppose that if in the present case there is no chance that this NS was ever going for a telephone number, you might just be right. Are we sure that this partnership would routinely pass partner's multi with S's hand? I might check whether on a weighted score there is still damage.

There were a couple of multis, both passed by South, seven 1100s and a 1400 with a rather nice defence. One multi led to 3NT+3, the other to 5C=. We are fairly sure that this partnership would routinely pass partner's multi, as the TD surveyed 10 inmates from the Broadmoor Bridge Club, and even they all passed. What other bid would you suggest?

 

And you write "South's psyche caters for ...". It is not the psyche that is the infraction, it is just the fact that he opened out of turn.

[Zelandakh]

And you write "South's psyche caters for ...". It is not the psyche that is the infraction, it is just the fact that he opened out of turn.

But the advantage from a psyche might mean that N-S would always open such a hand 2♣, which in turn creates an implicit partnership agreement. That agreement might make their methods illegal! We should certainly find out if N-S have psyched in this way before (not OOT), discussed the possibilits or are avid readers of BBF (where the subject has come up more than once). As for the psyche itself, my feeling is hat this is esentially run of the green. bridge players have an intrinsic distrust and dislike of psyches so when one is made that could conceivably be "dodgy" there is a tendency to want to rule against the psyching pair. This is the system regulation equivalent of "of it hesitates, shoot it".

 

What the TD should do is record the incident and discuss disclosure issues for future hands. Of course, if it turns out there is a history of opening strong bids OOT on weak hands then we throw the book at them.

[ggwhiz]

The TD considered that, but as North-South were playing a multi, there was no damage from the lack of an opening bid.

 

They aren't playing it over an overcall by west which south should surely anticipate.

 

Maybe I should rule on the basis of 3♠ or higher doubled by N/S?

[nige1]

As he said, he was not psychic ...

:) Good stuff, Paul :) IMO psyching an illegal bid is automatically a law 23 candidate. You "could have known" that the psych would be more effective opposite a partner, whom you have (probably) silenced.

[lamford]

They aren't playing it over an overcall by west which south should surely anticipate.

 

Maybe I should rule on the basis of 3♠ or higher doubled by N/S?

West had the opportunity to accept the 2♣ out of turn, and if he had bid, say, 3♣, North would not have been silenced and would have gone to his grave with 3♠. He chose not to accept the bid out of turn, and now he is arguing that South could have been aware the BOOT might well damage the non-offenders. It does look a bit like wanting to have his cake and eating it.

[lamford]

:) Good stuff, Paul :) IMO psyching an illegal bid is automatically a law 23 candidate. You "could have known" that the psych would be more effective opposite a partner, whom you have (probably) silenced.

I don't think the fact that it is a psyche makes it a Law 23 candidate. You could argue that any bid out of turn on a bad hand could damage the non-offenders, as that will also silence partner if the opponents do not accept it. If South had passed out of turn, would you apply Law 23, because North will no longer open a multi? Are you going to apply Law 23 to all BOOTs on bad hands? When it is more likely to damage the offenders, then it is hard to argue the player "could have been aware". Here the psyche out of turn was extremely unlikely to work, red against green.

[iviehoff]

Here the psyche out of turn was extremely unlikely to work, red against green.

But red against green is the ideal time to psyche a strong bid out of turn. Opponents rarely allow out of turn strong bids to stand unrectified.

[lamford]

But red against green is the ideal time to psyche a strong bid out of turn. Opponents rarely allow out of turn strong bids to stand unrectified.

If it is the ideal time to psyche 2♣ out of turn then Bayes' theorem says that the 2♣ bid is much more likely to be psychic than not, as there are far more weak hands than strong hands. This means that the opponents, against Probst cheats, should always accept the strong bid, and take some action that does not bar North from fielding it. Here, accepting it and either doubling or bidding 3C would cause North to bid spades, fatally. In addition, the psyche will concede lead penalties against a future contract by West. Any BOOT may damage the non-offending side. The value judgement is whether it could well do so. Otherwise one would always adjust when the enforced pass damages the non-offending side, without the Law 23 test. What percentage chance does that involve? We have the same problem as with UI when we have to decide what "some" means in "some would select it".

[lamford]

What the TD should do is record the incident and discuss disclosure issues for future hands. Of course, if it turns out there is a history of opening strong bids OOT on weak hands then we throw the book at them.

If there was a previous occasion of psyching out of turn, I would also throw the book at them, as there would be more than a suggestion that they were in breach of 72B1.

[Vampyr]

Any BOOT may damage the non-offending side. The value judgement is whether it could well do so. Otherwise one would always adjust when the enforced pass damages the non-offending side, without the Law 23 test. What percentage chance does that involve? We have the same problem as with UI when we have to decide what "some" means in "some would select it".

 

Well. Silencing partner when you have psyched a strong bid is very convenient; surely L23 apples here.

[blackshoe]

Are we seriously having a discussion about how best to cheat? :blink: :(

[jeffford76]

Are we seriously having a discussion about how best to cheat? :blink: :(

 

I don't see how you could possibly be a good director if you didn't understand how best to cheat.

[blackshoe]

I don't see how you could possibly be a good director if you didn't understand how best to cheat.

I'm not worried so much about directors as I am players who might read this thread and take from it the wrong message.

[Vampyr]

Are we seriously having a discussion about how best to cheat? :blink: :(

 

Well, some of us think that controlling your own psyche is a punishable offence.

[iviehoff]

Are we seriously having a discussion about how best to cheat? :blink: :(

I think we are trying our hardest to demonstrate that there are no loopholes for cheats to take advantage of, which requires an exploration of what potential loopholes can exist. Lamford has had to add extra fortuitous facts indicating how difficult it is to use this course of action for cheating. The wording of Law 23 makes it very difficult for a mode of cheating to exist. If a route is useful to cheats, then the "could well have known" test surely applies. In the present case, the difficulty is the counterfactual for adjustment. Counterfactuals for adjustment tend to be obscure when the action giving rise to adjustment is the first action in the auction. Maybe that should be a reason for making an artificial adjustment on this occasion.

[blackshoe]

I think we are trying our hardest to demonstrate that there are no loopholes for cheats to take advantage of, which requires an exploration of what potential loopholes can exist. Lamford has had to add extra fortuitous facts indicating how difficult it is to use this course of action for cheating. The wording of Law 23 makes it very difficult for a mode of cheating to exist. If a route is useful to cheats, then the "could well have known" test surely applies. In the present case, the difficulty is the counterfactual for adjustment. Counterfactuals for adjustment tend to be obscure when the action giving rise to adjustment is the first action in the auction. Maybe that should be a reason for making an artificial adjustment on this occasion.

Okay, that's fair enough. And Law 12C1{d} gives us the authority for an artificial adjustment here ("possibilities are numerous or not obvious").

[aguahombre]

Contrary to misquotes here, L23 simply uses "could have known" in the part related to possible intention of the offender. Then, later "could well damage" is used as an adverb to "damage".

 

Well seems to mean "successfully" (per Webster) in that context, and does not require any burden above speculation that the offender might have known that his action would be successful in damaging the opponents.

 

If Law23 really said "could well have known", then Lamford's "more likely than not" would be the burden we must show. It doesn't say that.

[gnasher]

Well seems to mean "successfully" (per Webster) in that context, and does not require any burden above speculation that the offender might have known that his action would be successful in damaging the opponents.

In English English "could well" implies a greater probability than merely "could".

[aguahombre]

In English English "could well" implies a greater probability than merely "could".

That is fine. But, it is not "could well have known". It is "could well damage". So, it doesn't apply in L23 to our assessment of the offender's intent at the time of the offense.

 

If we raise the bar from possibility to probability by interpreting L23 differently than the way it is written, the Probst cheat wins.

 

The beauty of L23, IMO, is that it can be applied without accusing. If we only get to use it when we can say the offender probably had something evil in mind, we are accusing and can use a different Law.

Edited March 4, 2014 by aguahombre

[blackshoe]

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, the Director 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*.

 

* As, for example, by partner’s enforced pass.

Couple of things. "In the opinion of the director". This gives no guidance as to what should inform the director's opinion. We are thus dangerously close to the "whim" against which Nigel so often warns us. Perhaps a discussion of this area would prove useful to the readers of this forum (both players and directors), but IMO that should be the subject of a separate thread. "Could have been aware" and "could well damage". If there's only a small probability of damage, less than "could well", then whether the player could have been aware of that is irrelevant - Law 23 does not apply. So perhaps to start we should look at whether the action could well damage the NOS. Lastly, "when the play has been completed…" The implication of this is that in a case where Law 23 might apply, you don't need to look at that question until, after the play, you decide that "the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity". Note that "gained an advantage" is not the same thing as "the NOS were damaged".

 

IMO this is one of the more difficult laws in the book.