Could have been aware

[nige1]

If North was about to bid 5♣ and that would lead to a good score for the opponents, and South could have known that bidding would be bad, and South's intervention effectively prevented North from bidding, then there must be a case for 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.

L23 can empower a director to decide an event by applying it. The director must decide whether the law-breaker could have been aware of potential damage (e.g. the law-breaker might be too stupid or ignorant). Crucially, its application depends neither on the ethics/intentions of the law-breaker nor on what he was actually aware. Hence, L23 is applicable to most irregularities that result in inadequate restitution for damage to non-offenders. In practice, to such cases, directors apply it only occasionally and selectively. This inconsistency can appear unfair to players. IMO, where relevant, L23 should be uniformly enforced. Failing that, it should be scrapped.

[blackshoe]

You say that Law 23 should be uniformly enforced. I would say "consistently", but I agree in general. In fact, that should apply to all laws. But you also say that "directors apply it only occasionally and selectively". According to my dictionary, "selectively" here means "carefully", but I don't think you mean it that way. In any case, I'd buy "occasionally" because it doesn't come up all that often, and because there are some directors who seem unaware of it (perhaps because it doesn't come up all that often :D ). As for "selectively", you'll have to explain what you mean. I suspect you're giving us an impression, rather than something based on concrete data. I also suspect it's a minority opinion.

[nige1]

You say that Law 23 should be uniformly enforced. I would say "consistently", but I agree in general. In fact, that should apply to all laws.

I agree with blackshoe that the law should insist on a PP or DP when a player breaks "must" rules and laws.

But you also say that "directors apply it only occasionally and selectively". According to my dictionary, "selectively" here means "carefully", but I don't think you mean it that way. In any case, I'd buy "occasionally" because it doesn't come up all that often, and because there are some directors who seem unaware of it (perhaps because it doesn't come up all that often :D ).

It mainly depends on how often you think there's inadequate redress for resulting damage. (IMO, more often than not, the offender "could have been aware").

As for "selectively", you'll have to explain what you mean. I suspect you're giving us an impression, rather than something based on concrete data. I also suspect it's a minority opinion.

I meant not random. Lacking mind-reading skills, I can only guess at a director's basis for discrimination.

[blackshoe]

It mainly depends on how often you think there's inadequate redress for resulting damage. (IMO, more often than not, the offender "could have been aware").

Hm. I don't know about that. I do know that determining whether a player truly "could have been aware" is not easy.

 

I meant not random. Lacking mind-reading skills, I can only guess at a director's basis for discrimination.

You presume discrimination, then. Maybe you're wrong. And maybe it depends on the expertise of the director involved. Club directors are typically not as good at directing as those who direct national or international events.

[nige1]

Hm. I don't know about that. I do know that determining whether a player truly "could have been aware" is not easy.

I agree that in, practice, such considerations will hardly ever enter the head of the average player -- but, in almost all cases, they could.

[campboy]

Hence, L23 is applicable to most irregularities that result in inadequate restitution for damage to non-offenders.

I'm not so sure about this. Usually it is not "could have known" which is the sticking point, but "could well damage the NOS"; the damage can't just be a fluke. Under normal circumstances an action which silences partner, say, is much more likely to damage OS than NOS; there has to be some special reason (based on information available to offender) to rule that there was a reasonable probability of damaging NOS before we can apply law 23.

 

The case in the thread you quote from is quite different. In that case the irregularity can never lose (since 5♣, if successful, will be ruled back anyway), and it is reasonably likely that it will gain (whenever 5♣x is a bad/phantom save). So this definitely passes the law 23 test.