Awareness of Damage

[Zelandakh]

Did anyone else read agua's post and imagine Sacha Baron Cohen saying something like "That could well damage him, man!" meaning hurt him badly? Yes the term is potentially ambiguous but the normal reading of it as I understand it is to strengthen the requirement - could damage would be any chance no matter how small; could well damage means a reasonable chance of damage, although just where this line is to be drawn should really be defined somewhere.

[pran]

Did anyone else read agua's post and imagine Sacha Baron Cohen saying something like "That could well damage him, man!" meaning hurt him badly? Yes the term is potentially ambiguous but the normal reading of it as I understand it is to strengthen the requirement - could damage would be any chance no matter how small; could well damage means a reasonable chance of damage, although just where this line is to be drawn should really be defined somewhere.

That is pecisely the point: "well" strengthens the probability from "anything possible" to "some significant probability, but not neccessarily even approaching 50%".

 

Exactly where the line is drawn is up to judgement by the director in each case.

[barmar]

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.

Do you really think there can be an objective criteria for determining what someone "could have known", and that could apply in all (or even most) situations where the director has to determine this?

[aguahombre]

That is pecisely the point: "well" strengthens the probability from "anything possible" to "some significant probability, but not neccessarily even approaching 50%".

 

Exactly where the line is drawn is up to judgement by the director in each case.

"Well" does something to add to the verb "damage", which is ideed used in a verb form in Law 23, but adds no probability to what the offender could have known. Even Sacha would probably be applying his adverbs to the verbs nearest.

[blackshoe]

Do you really think there can be an objective criteria for determining what someone "could have known", and that could apply in all (or even most) situations where the director has to determine this?

Of course not. I do believe that directors could do with some guidance as to how to apply this law. Particularly club level directors in the ACBL.

[pran]

That is pecisely the point: "well" strengthens the probability from "anything possible" to "some significant probability, but not neccessarily even approaching 50%".

 

Exactly where the line is drawn is up to judgement by the director in each case.

"Well" does something to add to the verb "damage", which is ideed used in a verb form in Law 23, but adds no probability to what the offender could have known. Even Sacha would probably be applying his adverbs to the verbs nearest.

 

"could" happen: There is a possibility (however small but greater than zero) that something happens.

 

"could well" happen: There is a significant possibility (for instance at least 10% or maybe 20%) that something happens.

 

"will most likely" happen: There is an almost certainty that something happens.

 

The word "well" applies to "could", not to "happens"

[aguahombre]

Yep, but it doesn't apply to the offender's knowledge of the probability that something would happen at the moment he committed the infraction. Law 23 does.

 

I probably/likely could have predicted an outcome.

I could have predicted a probable/likely outcome.

 

These are different statements. The first one says it is more likely than not I figured what would happen. The second says the outcome was likely, but my ability to predict it is in question.

 

Law 23 only requires the second. We know this because that is what Law 23 says.

[pran]

Yep, but it doesn't apply to the offender's knowledge of the probability that something would happen at the moment he committed the infraction. Law 23 does.

 

I probably/likely could have predicted an outcome.

I could have predicted a probable/likely outcome.

 

These are different statements. The first one says it is more likely than not I figured what would happen. The second says the outcome was likely, but my ability to predict it is in question.

 

Law 23 only requires the second. We know this because that is what Law 23 says.

 

Honestly I don't understand Your point?

 

What Law 23 says is that if I at the time I committed an irregularity could with some significant (although not neccessarily very high) probability have predicted that my irregularity might result in damage to opponents (without neccessarily knowing in what way!) then there is cause for adjustment if my opponents really became damaged from my irregularity.

 

There is no requirement that I shall be aware of the possible damaging outcome from my irregularity.

[barmar]

Almost anything "could" be true. Could the framers really have intended such a low bar in Law 23.

[barmar]

Almost anything "could" be true. Could the framers really have intended such a low bar in Law 23.

Hmm, I worded that question poorly. I used "could" in my question, and as I said, almost anything could be true, so I guess the question answers itself.

 

Is it likely the framers intended...?

[pran]

As I have already stated:

That is pecisely the point: "well" strengthens the probability from "anything possible" to "some significant probability, but not neccessarily even approaching 50%".

 

Exactly where the line is drawn is up to judgement by the director in each case.

 

Hmm, I worded that question poorly. I used "could" in my question, and as I said, almost anything could be true, so I guess the question answers itself.

 

Is it likely the framers intended...?

 

And I assume that is exactly what is intended.

[nige1]

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

I hope not. Law 23 has no requirement that the player acted deliberately, was aware of what he'd done, knew his irregularity might harm opponents, or how it might do so. For law 23 to apply, it's sufficient that the irregularity could cause damage and there's a significant possibility that the offender "could have known" that.

 

Corrected and expanded

Edited March 6, 2014 by nige1

[aguahombre]

 

What Law 23 says is that if I at the time I committed an irregularity could with some significant (although not neccessarily very high) probability have predicted that my irregularity might result in damage to opponents (without neccessarily knowing in what way!) then there is cause for adjustment if my opponents really became damaged from my irregularity.

 

I hope not. Law 23 has no requirement that a player knew that his irregularity might harm opponents or how it might do so. For law 23 to apply, it's sufficient that there was at least a small but significant likelihood of damage, which the offender "could have known" about.

I have failed to communicate that these two readings of Law 23 are different, and that Nige1's reading is what the Law actually says.

[lamford]

For law 23 to apply, it's sufficient that there was at least a small but significant likelihood of damage

No. If that were the case, they would have left out the word "well", which, as gnasher points out, implies a higher probability. The long-suffering TD has to assign a probability to this "well", as he has to do with the "some" in Law 16.

 

http://bridge.rfrick.info/laws/couldwell.htm has an interesting discussion of the meaning of "could well". I think that this is the right interpretation:

 

There should be a rectification when the player, at the time of the infraction, could have calculated that committing the irregularity and paying the proscribed penalty had a higher expected value than not committing the irregularity.

[blackshoe]

There should be a rectification when the player, at the time of the infraction, could have calculated that committing the irregularity and paying the proscribed penalty had a higher expected value than not committing the irregularity.

It seems to me that makes rectification under Law 23 very rare. Mind you, I'm not saying he's wrong.

[pran]

What Law 23 says is that if I at the time I committed an irregularity could with some significant (although not neccessarily very high) probability have predicted that my irregularity might result in damage to opponents (without neccessarily knowing in what way!) then there is cause for adjustment if my opponents really became damaged from my irregularity.

I hope not. Law 23 has no requirement that a player knew that his irregularity might harm opponents or how it might do so. For law 23 to apply, it's sufficient that there was at least a small but significant likelihood of damage, which the offender "could have known" about.

 

I have failed to communicate that these two readings of Law 23 are different, and that Nige1's reading is what the Law actually says.

 

Honestly I fail to see the alleged difference in reality?

[nige1]

There should be a rectification when the player, at the time of the infraction, could have calculated that committing the irregularity and paying the proscribed penalty had a higher expected value than not committing the irregularity.

A significant positive expectation for the law-breaker usually eguates to a significant negative expectation (i.e. damage) for the other side.

[mycroft]

many of the L23 cases that make sense have been turned into prohibitions in the Laws. Viz at least the inability to double after making an insufficient bid; the pretty much auto-clawback if you try to pull insufficient, then 4NT; the "equity" ruling for revoke-to-kill-entries; that's just off the top of my head.

 

The advice given me (sort of, in a side note) when becoming a tournament director was "you should look, but you'll probably never see a L23 case." My belief here is very much like the one lamford quoted; I'd put it more in the "Probst Cheat" category - if you do something someone trying to get a better result through cheating would do, even innocently, you get ruled against. If it's not something that has a Law already, L23 will work.

 

I don't think that a case where "well, if partner's got the low end of what they've promised, we probably survive this one, and may likely get a good score; but if it's all average, we could go for our life, let's hope not" comes under that category. Add "heard something from the previous table" to the OP, and we're here. But with North having an equal chance of having West's hand as her own, "bidding to silence partner so he won't hang us in Spades" seems - low EV?

[mfa1010]

No. If that were the case, they would have left out the word "well", which, as gnasher points out, implies a higher probability. The long-suffering TD has to assign a probability to this "well", as he has to do with the "some" in Law 16.

 

http://bridge.rfrick.info/laws/couldwell.htm has an interesting discussion of the meaning of "could well". I think that this is the right interpretation:

 

There should be a rectification when the player, at the time of the infraction, could have calculated that committing the irregularity and paying the proscribed penalty had a higher expected value than not committing the irregularity.

Strictly requiring that the irregularity is +EV for the offending side is imo going too far.

 

"Damage" is a concrete negative outcome for the nonoffending side on the particular board. Not an average of outcomes.

 

"Could well damage" implies that "damage" might concretely occur with some reasonable, nonspecified probability. And that is all. I think the rule covers situations where damage could well go either way, even if the irregularity is probably -EV for the offending side, as long as it is reasonably close. It seems clear that what we don't want, is for offenders to speculate in committing irregularities, and a margin of judgement seems right.

 

In my opinion this board is such a case. The irregularity is probably -EV, I would say. But it is easy to imagine that it will work to the offender's advantage (and thus could well damage the opponents), because with a 1hp hand vul vs not it could well be good to silence partner, especially holding a surpise void of spades, the master suit and most probable trump suit.

 

I would adjust the score.

[iviehoff]

Strictly requiring that the irregularity is +EV for the offending side is imo going too far.

 

"Damage" is a concrete negative outcome for the nonoffending side on the particular board. Not an average of outcomes.

 

"Could well damage" implies that "damage" might concretely occur with some reasonable, nonspecified probability. And that is all. I think the rule covers situations where damage could well go either way, even if the irregularity is probably -EV for the offending side, as long as it is reasonably close. It seems clear that what we don't want, is for offenders to speculate in committing irregularities, and a margin of judgement seems right.

 

In my opinion this board is such a case. The irregularity is probably -EV, I would say. But it is easy to imagine that it will work to the offender's advantage (and thus could well damage the opponents), because with a 1hp hand vul vs not it could well be good to silence partner, especially holding a surpise void of spades, the master suit and most probable trump suit.

 

I would adjust the score.

I agree with all that.

[Zelandakh]

Strictly requiring that the irregularity is +EV for the offending side is imo going too far.

And what you are suggesting here goes too far too. By this definition almost any psyched OBOOT is a Law 23 case because you can construct some hands where it will work. This kind of bad reasoning is almost certainly why the "well" is written in, to avoid Directors making adjustments for "rub of the green" cases.

[StevenG]

And what you are suggesting here goes too far too. By this definition almost any psyched OBOOT is a Law 23 case because you can construct some hands where it will work. This kind of bad reasoning is almost certainly why the "well" is written in, to avoid Directors making adjustments for "rub of the green" cases.

Since any non-psyched OBOOT puts the NOS into an unusual auction that they could get wrong (and be damaged in a way that cannot be replicated at any other table), then I don't think it unreasonable that a psyched OBOOT, forcing NOS into a decision with incorrect information, should automatically be a L23 case.

[mfa1010]

And what you are suggesting here goes too far too. By this definition almost any psyched OBOOT is a Law 23 case because you can construct some hands where it will work. This kind of bad reasoning is almost certainly why the "well" is written in, to avoid Directors making adjustments for "rub of the green" cases.

 

This is not correct, not my position, and not what I wrote.

 

And regarding this particular case, I judge it not to be just a rub of the green case. This bid out of turn is just too likely to win (cause damage), and too close to what a crook might do on purpose. If the thing were legal, I might have done it myself if I needed a swing, things didn't even have to be desperate.

 

But that doesn't mean that the same is true for any bid out of turn.