Insufficient bid in a county league game

[lamford]

"Might well" suggests to me something rather over 50%. I don't think that's the case.

I think that we have discussed the meaning of "might well" on here before, and the consensus was that a much lower percentage was needed. If you wrote "if you smoke, you might well get cancer", that does not imply a probability of anywhere near 50%, merely that there is a significant chance of it happening.

[lamford]

Partner is not even a passed hand! Why should we not be making 4H or 3NT?

South is not a passed hand either. North has 12-19 with 3+ diamonds say, and we have 12. We might well be making 4H or 3NT, but I would put the chance at under 10%, so I don't think it meets with your definition of "might well". Plugging my hand into bridge dealer, we will make 3NT less than 4% of the time, as the diamonds rarely come in. I thought East's gambit of bidding 1D then 2D was an excellent shot. It would probably have been even better over a Precision 1D.

[blackshoe]

I thought East's gambit of bidding 1D then 2D was an excellent shot. It would probably have been even better over a Precision 1D.

Players "know" that they can correct an insufficient 1♦ to 2♦ without further penalty. What are the odds that this player was just acting on what he "knows" rather than conspiring to use an IB to get to a good spot? I would say pretty damn good.

 

Precision opens another can of worms, at least in the ACBL, where the Precision 1♦ opening is not natural.

[lamford]

What are the odds that this player was just acting on what he "knows" rather than conspiring to use an IB to get to a good spot? I would say pretty damn good.

Very likely, I agree. However, Law 23 does not say "could well have been aware". It just says "could have been aware", which is some small probability greater than zero.

[blackshoe]

"In determining the facts, the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect."

 

Seems to me the weight of "very likely" is considerably greater than the weight of "some small probability greater than zero". Granted the first quote is from Law 85, which is about what the TD does when the facts are not agreed by the players at the table, and that law probably does not apply here. Still, the principle expressed seems valid, especially considering that the thrust of the laws as a whole is, we are told, to restore equity. Does applying Law 23 in this case do that?

[jallerton]

"In determining the facts, the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect."

 

Seems to me the weight of "very likely" is considerably greater than the weight of "some small probability greater than zero". Granted the first quote is from Law 85, which is about what the TD does when the facts are not agreed by the players at the table, and that law probably does not apply here. Still, the principle expressed seems valid, especially considering that the thrust of the laws as a whole is, we are told, to restore equity. Does applying Law 23 in this case do that?

 

If you go down that route, the TD should be assessing whether on the balance of probabilities East could have been aware, NOT whether on the balance of probabilities East was aware.

[gordontd]

I don't think it meets with your definition of "might well".

Nor need it, since I didn't say that we "might well" have game.

[blackshoe]

If you go down that route, the TD should be assessing whether on the balance of probabilities East could have been aware, NOT whether on the balance of probabilities East was aware.

I can see an argument that, logically, the probability that a player could have been aware of just about anything is exactly 1.

 

Let me ask this: how do you assess what a player "could have been aware" of? More to the point, I suppose, is how do you assess whether a player "could have been aware" that his action 1) was an irregularity and 2) that it "could well damage" the OS? What criteria? What thought process?

[Trinidad]

L23 does not require that a player actually thought anything at all about the matter.

No, it doesn't.

 

But it requires that the TD considers it a realistic possibility that this actual player on this actual hand was aware that...

 

Do we think that there are players who, when the right hand comes along, would be aware that an infraction might work to their advantage? Yes, we do. Do we think it is realistically probable that this actual player, on this particular hand, was aware that an infraction might work to his advantage? No way.

 

Law 23 is meant to stop sharp practice, not to hit on players who weren't paying attention.

 

Rik

[lamford]

Do we think it is realistically probable that this actual player, on this particular hand, was aware that an infraction might work to his advantage? No way.

As jallerton points out that is not the test. If it were, Law 23 would say "was possibly aware". Instead it says "could have been aware". So, even if we think there was zero chance that he was aware, we adjust if we think there is a small chance that he could have been aware.

[blackshoe]

As jallerton points out that is not the test. If it were, Law 23 would say "was possibly aware". Instead it says "could have been aware". So, even if we think there was zero chance that he was aware, we adjust if we think there is a small chance that he could have been aware.

This argument makes no sense to me. We know something didn't happen, but we're going to rule on the basis that it might have happened? In some other universe, perhaps? Mind-boggling.

[Vampyr]

Law 23 is meant to stop sharp practice, not to hit on players who weren't paying attention.

 

The sharp practice cannot be prevented unless the players not paying attention are subject to the same penalty.

 

L23 enables us to avoid suggesting that someone is a cheat -- and from figuring out whether this is the case,

[Vampyr]

We know something didn't happen, but we're going to rule on the basis that it might have happened?

 

Basically yes, but "might have happened" seems to show where you are stuck. The distinction is perhaps subtle, but the fact is that we are not considering the probability that it actually happened.

[blackshoe]

Basically yes, but "might have happened" seems to show where you are stuck. The distinction is perhaps subtle, but the fact is that we are not considering the probability that it actually happened.

Let me repeat something I asked upthread:

 

Let me ask this: how do you assess what a player "could have been aware" of? More to the point, I suppose, is how do you assess whether a player "could have been aware" that his action 1) was an irregularity and 2) that it "could well damage" the OS? What criteria? What thought process?

When I first got interested in the laws, I had a hard time getting my head around Law 16. I think I understand that one now, but law 23 still evades me. I guess I need help. :D

[Trinidad]

As jallerton points out that is not the test. If it were, Law 23 would say "was possibly aware". Instead it says "could have been aware". So, even if we think there was zero chance that he was aware, we adjust if we think there is a small chance that he could have been aware.

If your interpretation would be correct, Law 23 would simply be: "If a contestant benefits from his own infraction, the TD shall award an AS".

 

The word "could" implies "suspicion". If I call the tax office and tell them that you could have been cheating on your tax form, I get in trouble (and rightly so). I cannot say that I meant "Cheating occurs. It is therefore not impossible (P>0) that Lamford cheated on his tax form."... Because that is not what "could" means.

 

Rik

[jallerton]

I can see an argument that, logically, the probability that a player could have been aware of just about anything is exactly 1.

 

Let me ask this: how do you assess what a player "could have been aware" of? More to the point, I suppose, is how do you assess whether a player "could have been aware" that his action 1) was an irregularity and 2) that it "could well damage" the OS? What criteria? What thought process?

 

If your interpretation would be correct, Law 23 would simply be: "If a contestant benefits from his own infraction, the TD shall award an AS".

 

I think we should apply the Probst cheat test: might a cheat trying to take advantage of the Laws act this way?. We don't adjust if the player gains incidentally from his infraction, i.e. if someone in his position could not reasonably have foreseen how the infraction would gain.

 

Take the hand in question. What might a cheat's thought process be? "Sitting East, I would expect South to be declaring a major suit contract much of the time and I would like a diamond lead. I was about to open or overcall in diamonds but RHO has messed up my plan by opening 1♦. I have a suitable hand for a natural 2♦ overcall (as some play here), but unfortunately we play it as both majors. Is there anything I can do to show my diamond suit? Ah yes, 1♦, prepared to correct to 2♦ if LHO does not accept it. Partner will be silenced, but I don't care that much with little support for the majors suits and RHO likely to have a fair amount of defence as he's likely to be balanced. I've now bid diamonds in the legal auction, so the lead restrictions in Law 26 do not seem to apply."

 

The lawmakers clearly believe that Law 23 is relevant to some insufficient bid cases: Law 27B2 includes at the end "and see Law 23". Obviously, it's a matter of judgement for the TD whether or not to apply it to cases like this.

[aguahombre]

I think we should apply the Probst cheat test: might a cheat trying to take advantage of the Laws act this way?. We don't adjust if the player gains incidentally from his infraction, i.e. if someone in his position could not reasonably have foreseen how the infraction would gain.

I don't see anything to support "...forseen how the infraction would gain." I see: could have foreseen that it might well gain. There could be more than one way it might well gain, and/or the actual gain might not be one which "could have been" predictable.

 

But, again, the adjustment without weighting should be the same numeric result anyway in this case. The TD should still go through the process to arrive at an adjustment which is in effect no adjustment.

[blackshoe]

But, again, the adjustment without weighting should be the same numeric result anyway in this case. The TD should still go through the process to arrive at an adjustment which is in effect no adjustment.

I have, as submariners say, lost the bubble. "An adjustment which is in effect no adjustment"? Please explain.

[aguahombre]

I have, as submariners say, lost the bubble. "An adjustment which is in effect no adjustment"? Please explain.

2D minus 100. 3S minus 100. Not complicated. A PP is not an adjustment; it is a PP, and I wouldn't give one anyway.

[Vampyr]

The word "could" implies "suspicion".

 

No it doesn't.

 

I have been thinking of mentioning the Probst cheat, since this is a textbook case. jallerton explained it well above, and no further discussion is warranted.

[campboy]

But, again, the adjustment without weighting should be the same numeric result anyway in this case. The TD should still go through the process to arrive at an adjustment which is in effect no adjustment.

I disagree. Law 23 says (subject to the "could have known" condition, etc) that the TD adjusts the score if he considers the offending side has gained. If you want to adjust to the same numeric result then you are ruling that they haven't gained, so you shouldn't be adjusting at all.

[aguahombre]

I disagree. Law 23 says (subject to the "could have known" condition, etc) that the TD adjusts the score if he considers the offending side has gained. If you want to adjust to the same numeric result then you are ruling that they haven't gained, so you shouldn't be adjusting at all.

We are saying the same thing. He "considers" that the offending side has gained; then he figures out the result without the infraction; and comes up with the same minus 100. Who cares at this point whether he adjusted to minus 100 or let minus 100 stand? It is a process which he should go through in order to come to equity.

 

The TD does not know the results are equal until completing his task, and with weighting available the results are not equal.

[blackshoe]

2D minus 100. 3S minus 100. Not complicated. A PP is not an adjustment; it is a PP, and I wouldn't give one anyway.

Who said a PP is an adjustment, or should be used in place of or as part of one? Certainly I did not!

[blackshoe]

I disagree. Law 23 says (subject to the "could have known" condition, etc) that the TD adjusts the score if he considers the offending side has gained. If you want to adjust to the same numeric result then you are ruling that they haven't gained, so you shouldn't be adjusting at all.

Seems right to me.

[blackshoe]

No it doesn't.

 

I have been thinking of mentioning the Probst cheat, since this is a textbook case. jallerton explained it well above, and no further discussion is warranted.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.