Spectacular Stop

[RMB1]

... And RMB1 expressed the opinion (I cannot find the thread now) that 73C was left in by accident when 16B came in. ...

 

Did I!? I can believe it but now I would maintain that Law 73C is not redundant.

 

Law 73C was part of the "Proprietries" when they were distinct from the "Laws" and I think that explains the difference in approach to UI from Law 16B.

 

... All TDs follow 16B, both in polling and ruling. ...

 

A poll targetted at a ruling under Law 16B may nevertheless indicate a breach of Law 73C and so to a procedural penalty (as well as a possible adjusted score under Law 16B).

[aguahombre]

Three pages later, we still have what Art and Vamp contend. And, they are still right.

 

Good grief. North is within a range; he is invited to game if he is at the top; he is at the top. He doesn't bid game; the invite followed a significant BIT.

 

The director should conclude that this was blatant use of UI. It doesn't matter what self-serving B.S. the offending side comes up with. It doesn't matter whether North's guess about the nature of the UI was correct or incorrect. It doesn't matter whether the contract made or went down. North committed a clear infraction which we are afraid to call what it is.

[blackshoe]

Laws 16B and 73C say different things. Often complying with one of them will help to comply with the other, but not necessarily. Atempting to gain an advantage by making a call that would never occurred to you had you not received UI is clearly not "carefully avoiding taking any advantage" from that UI and is an obvious breach of Law 73C. If 16B has not been breached, the TD can use Law 12A1 to adjust for a breach of this Law.

I agree with the first three sentences here. I'm not so sure about the fourth. Law 73C should lead us to Law 73F, which would allow an adjusted score if an player has drawn a false inference from a remark, tempo or the like from a player who has no bridge reason for the action, and that caused damage. In this case, the NOS drew no damage causing inferences; the damage was caused by the offending side stopping in 2NT instead of bidding 3NT and going down like everybody else did. So there is a potential rectification for a breach of Law 73C, but Law 73F says "not in this case". Now look at

Law 12B2: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

The rectification provided in Law 73F seems to be "result stands". One could argue that this is both unduly severe to the NOS and unduly advantageous to the OS, but Law 12B2 says that doesn't matter. Does 12B2 not apply here? Why not? If it does apply, then I would argue that you can't use 12A1 to adjust the score, as that would be circumventing 12B2.

[blackshoe]

Three pages later, we still have what Art and Vamp contend. And, they are still right.

 

Good grief. North is within a range; he is invited to game if he is at the top; he is at the top. He doesn't bid game; the invite followed a significant BIT.

 

The director should conclude that this was blatant use of UI. It doesn't matter what self-serving B.S. the offending side comes up with. It doesn't matter whether North's guess about the nature of the UI was correct or incorrect. It doesn't matter whether the contract made or went down. North committed a clear infraction which we are afraid to call what it is.

I call it what it is, an infraction of Law 73C. And I'm not looking at any BS from the offending side, self-serving or otherwise. I am looking at the law, and until I'm sure there's a legal path to a score adjustment, I'm not making one. I believe I did say that I think the OS rates a PP.

[lamford]

I call it what it is, an infraction of Law 73C. And I'm not looking at any BS from the offending side, self-serving or otherwise. I am looking at the law, and until I'm sure there's a legal path to a score adjustment, I'm not making one. I believe I did say that I think the OS rates a PP.

I think that is right. Score stands, but PP for North for attempting to breach 73C but failing.

[blackshoe]

I think that is right. Score stands, but PP for North for attempting to breach 73C but failing.

Oh, he breached Law 73C all right. He just didn't breach it in such a way as to cause a score adjustment to be legal.

[jallerton]

I agree with the first three sentences here. I'm not so sure about the fourth. Law 73C should lead us to Law 73F, which would allow an adjusted score if an player has drawn a false inference from a remark, tempo or the like from a player who has no bridge reason for the action, and that caused damage. In this case, the NOS drew no damage causing inferences; the damage was caused by the offending side stopping in 2NT instead of bidding 3NT and going down like everybody else did. So there is a potential rectification for a breach of Law 73C, but Law 73F says "not in this case". Now look at

The rectification provided in Law 73F seems to be "result stands". One could argue that this is both unduly severe to the NOS and unduly advantageous to the OS, but Law 12B2 says that doesn't matter. Does 12B2 not apply here? Why not? If it does apply, then I would argue that you can't use 12A1 to adjust the score, as that would be circumventing 12B2.

 

I disagree. Law 73F is the mechanism for a score adjustment "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", i.e. it authorises a score adjustment if there has been a breach of Law 73D. Law 73F does not deal with rectification for violations of Law 73C (and nor does any other particular Law, except perhaps Law 23), so Law 12B2 is not relevant. Law 23 is a possibility, but otherwise Law 12A1 applies.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps you're right, I'll have to think about it some more. My immediate thought though is that if the Lawmakers intended 73F to apply only to 73D why did they construct Law 73 the way they did, and why does 73F refer to "the proprieties described in this law [presumably 73 in its entirety - ER]" instead of just to law 73D?

[blackshoe]

On further reflection, I have to agree with my earlier thought. 73F applies to all of 73, not just 73D. So if an infraction of any earlier part (than 73F) of law 73 does not lead to a false inference by an opponent, 73F is inoperative; it provides no rectification. Now there are two sides (AFAICS) to the ensuing discussion: either 12A1 applies and you adjust the score on the basis that the laws do not provide indemnity for the particular type of violation concerned — that being, I think, a violation of the proprieties in Law 73 which does not lead to a false inference by an opponent, but does lead to damage via some other mechanism — or 12B2 applies, and the director is prohibited from adjusting the score.

 

I agree with the sentiment that applying 12A1 here is "better" in a lot of ways, but I'm more concerned with "legal" than "better". To me, Law 73F implies that if there's no false inference tied to the violation of a propriety, there's no rectification. Suppose there were a revoke on trick 12. The law says there's no rectification for that. Would anyone now try to use 12A1 to adjust the score? Okay, in the current laws we have 64C, but that's new in this edition. What if it weren't there?

 

Put it another way: I'd be happy to be convinced that 12A1 applies. I'm not. Convince me. :)

[Vampyr]

Three pages later, we still have what Art and Vamp contend. And, they are still right.

 

Good grief. North is within a range; he is invited to game if he is at the top; he is at the top. He doesn't bid game; the invite followed a significant BIT.

 

The director should conclude that this was blatant use of UI. It doesn't matter what self-serving B.S. the offending side comes up with. It doesn't matter whether North's guess about the nature of the UI was correct or incorrect. It doesn't matter whether the contract made or went down. North committed a clear infraction which we are afraid to call what it is.

 

Thanks for the vote of confidence; I am really mystified by all this discussion of what seems to me a WTP question.

 

It looks as if the attempt to take advantage of the UI was the player's chief reason for choosing his call. Adjust, maybe give a PP, next case.

[lamford]

Thanks for the vote of confidence; I am really mystified by all this discussion of what seems to me a WTP question.

 

It looks as if the attempt to take advantage of the UI was the player's chief reason for choosing his call. Adjust, maybe give a PP, next case.

Where I disagree with you is on the interpretation of Law 73 which concludes, "must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorised information",

 

TD: What did the UI suggest to you?

 

Chancer: I thought that South was either weak or strong for his invite. I decided to play him for being weak and hoped that 3NT might, for some reason, fail.

 

TD: Did you take any advantage from that unauthorised information?

 

Chancer: No, even opposite a minimum invite, it must still be right to bid 3NT, and Pass must be hugely against the odds. But I saw an opportunity to score a goal against SB and took a shot from 60 yards. The cause of the damage was not my selecting Pass, which increased the a priori expectancy of EW, hence no damage, but the freakish layout of the cards. In 1000 simulations opposite a 19-count, 3NT did not fail a single time.

 

In my opinion, for a call to be demonstrably suggested, it must be more likely to succeed as a result of the UI, and have positive expectancy.

[aguahombre]

Where I disagree with you is on the interpretation of Law 73 which concludes, "must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorised information",

 

TD: What did the UI suggest to you?

 

Chancer: I thought that South was either weak or strong for his invite. I decided to play him for being weak and hoped that 3NT might, for some reason, fail.

The damage is real. 3NT failed for "some reason", which is the quoted reasoning of the offender. "Chancer" used the UI in his choice. I see no difference between taking advantage and gaining advantage. The result was an advantage; leave the intent factor for the decision about PP's. Maybe in order to achieve equity (for these pairs at this table, not for some simulated result) we must go through L12A1 enroute. But, we can get there.

[blackshoe]

I see no difference between taking advantage and gaining advantage.

And yet there is a difference. Suppose for the sake of argument the TD judges that he did in fact carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, thus complying with Law 73C. Nevertheless, through the lie of the cards, some bad decisions by the defense (not related to any infraction, if you wish), and some good luck, he got a good score. So he "gained an advantage". I don't think it follows that he must have taken advantage of UI to do so.

[jallerton]

On further reflection, I have to agree with my earlier thought. 73F applies to all of 73, not just 73D. So if an infraction of any earlier part (than 73F) of law 73 does not lead to a false inference by an opponent, 73F is inoperative; it provides no rectification. Now there are two sides (AFAICS) to the ensuing discussion: either 12A1 applies and you adjust the score on the basis that the laws do not provide indemnity for the particular type of violation concerned — that being, I think, a violation of the proprieties in Law 73 which does not lead to a false inference by an opponent, but does lead to damage via some other mechanism — or 12B2 applies, and the director is prohibited from adjusting the score.

 

I agree with the sentiment that applying 12A1 here is "better" in a lot of ways, but I'm more concerned with "legal" than "better". To me, Law 73F implies that if there's no false inference tied to the violation of a propriety, there's no rectification. Suppose there were a revoke on trick 12. The law says there's no rectification for that. Would anyone now try to use 12A1 to adjust the score? Okay, in the current laws we have 64C, but that's new in this edition. What if it weren't there?

 

Put it another way: I'd be happy to be convinced that 12A1 applies. I'm not. Convince me. :)

 

In your words: "73F is inoperative; it provides no rectification."

 

Law 12B2 says:

 

The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

 

As 73F does not provide rectification for a breach of 73C, 12B2 is not relevant here.

 

On the other hand, we have Law 84D (thanks to Aardv for pointing this out on another recent thread):

 

The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12).

 

and in this context I claim that Law 12A1:

 

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.

 

is more relevant than Law 12B2.

[aguahombre]

And yet there is a difference. Suppose for the sake of argument the TD judges that he did in fact carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, thus complying with Law 73C. Nevertheless, through the lie of the cards, some bad decisions by the defense (not related to any infraction, if you wish), and some good luck, he got a good score. So he "gained an advantage". I don't think it follows that he must have taken advantage of UI to do so.

If you gain, you "take" it. The TD adjusts so you don't "get" it. If he doesn't, you have "taken" advantage. And, regardless of your stated intentions, you have used the UI in the process.

[blackshoe]

Sorry Agua, but I don't buy it. Not at all. It sounds an awful lot like "if it hesitates, shoot it".

[blackshoe]

As 73F does not provide rectification for a breach of 73C, 12B2 is not relevant here.

 

On the other hand, we have Law 84D (thanks to Aardv for pointing this out on another recent thread):

 

and in this context I claim that Law 12A1:

 

is more relevant than Law 12B2.

With the caveat that 73F doesn't provide rectification for *this* breach of 73C, but might do so for a different breach of that law, this is convincing enough. Thanks. B-)