"Such Part"

[blackshoe]

Another item from an ACBL LC meeting:

 

The Commission members discussed the phrase in Law 12c.1.b. that states “does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted.” Adam Wildavsky pointed out that “such part” in this phrase is ambiguous. The Commission members agreed to discuss this issue more in the future.

Is Mr. Wildavsky correct?

[pran]

Another item from an ACBL LC meeting:

The Commission members discussed the phrase in Law 12c.1.b. that states does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. Adam Wildavsky pointed out that such part in this phrase is ambiguous. The Commission members agreed to discuss this issue more in the future.

Is Mr. Wildavsky correct?

Not the way I understand it. To me "such part of" points forward to the clause "as is self-inflicted" and I find no ambiguity there.

 

(But then I have no university degree in language, be it English, American or Norwegian. My profession is technology.)

[ArtK78]

It would be helpful to read the entire provision of the law in question:

 

(b) If, subsequent to the irregularity, the nonoffending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

 

I do not see anything here that is ambiguous. It does call for some judgment on the part of the TD and/or the committee in determining how much of the damage was caused by the actions of the offending side and how much of the damage was caused by subsequent actions of the nonoffending side, but such judgments are made all the time. It is not an ambiguity.

 

For example, suppose there is a BIT in a competitve auction. The partner of the player who had the BIT then takes an action in passout seat that could be based on the UI. If the nonoffending side then leaps to a slam after passing in game, the fact that the NOS gets a bad score is not directly related to the infraction. The NOS is entitled to some relief - they would have played in a lower contract if it were not for the offense committed by the offending side. But the ultimate result was self-inflicted. I don't see any ambiguity in determining the proper result - some combination of what the NOS would have scored in the absence of the offense and the result obtained on account of their own gambling action.The score will be determined by judgment of the TD or the committee.

[RMB1]

I think it is ambiguous (is ill-defined) how to quantify "such part" in calculating the score for the non-offenders.

 

The calculation for Law 12C1(b) in England is done in terms of matchpoints or IMPs (rather than raw scores or victory points), these calculations follows examples of rulings capturing the intent of Law 12C1(b) before it entered the law book in 2007. For matchpoints, there are is still a small grey area of ambiguity in the calculation.

[aguahombre]

How does the Polish/English pocket book translate "such part"?

[mycroft]

So, the lawyer doesn't think it's ambiguous. Why am I not surprised?

 

I, too, agree that it's not ambiguous, but I'm used to reading Avalon Hill wargaming rulebooks and having English majors in my family. I do also suggest that it's beautiful lawyerese, and classic Grattanese, and that it should be reworded for the 90% of TDs who are not lawyers or Grattanic scholars.

 

Of course, the alternate meaning could be totally lost on me by training and expectation, and it is ambiguous.

[barmar]

"such part" does sound extremely formal and lawyerly. A simplifying rewording I can think of would be "the part", but I don't see how that would make it easier to apply the law.

 

BTW, shouldn't this thread be in "Changing Laws and Regulations"?

[ArtK78]

"such part" does sound extremely formal and lawyerly.

 

These are laws, after all. They should be "formal" and "lawyerly."

 

 

I think it is ambiguous (is ill-defined) how to quantify "such part" in calculating the score for the non-offenders.

 

Ambiguous and ill-defined are often different concepts. Personally, I don't see how either applies here. The rule is quite clear - the NOS is entilted to an adjustment, but not for damage that they caused to themselves. How that is quantified is left to the TD and/or the appeals committee. And how could it be any other way? In what manner could the laws specify how much damage was caused by the initial infraction, and how much was caused by the subsequent action(s) of the NOS?

 

Going back to the example that I posted. If not for the initial infraction, the NOS would have obtained a good result. The infraction caused the NOS damage. If the NOS does nothing which is objectively unreasonable after the infraction, all of the damage caused by the infraction will be restored. That is easy enough to quantify. If the NOS does something patently unreasonable, they cause themselves additional damage. They are not entitled to relief from that - in other words, they do not get a free shot on account of the infraction if the free shot is patently unreasonable.

 

Assume that the NOS is about to play in 4♥ after a competitive auction. One opponent has a BIT and passes. In passout seat, the other opponent bids 4♠, which is determined to be an infraction. Now the NOS may have three reasonable alternatives - double, pass or bid 5♥. If the NOS takes any of these actions, the NOS is probably entitled to no worse a score than they would have attained in 4♥. But suppose the NOS now bids 6♥ which fails, and it is determined that 6♥ was a wild or gambling action. Now the NOS is only entitled to an adjustment based on the score they would have attained in 4♥ (had there been no infraction) and on the score that they actually attained by going down in slam. I would guess that the NOS would get an average of the two results. But by not spelling out the exact manner of the adjustment, the law leaves it to the TD and/or the appeals committee to determine the exact nature of the adjustment. I think that is the right way to go.

[blackshoe]

"such part" does sound extremely formal and lawyerly. A simplifying rewording I can think of would be "the part", but I don't see how that would make it easier to apply the law.

 

BTW, shouldn't this thread be in "Changing Laws and Regulations"?

Nope. Not interesting in discussing changes, just wanted to know if people think the phrase is ambiguous.

 

Threads do drift, of course. If this one goes down that road, I'll split it.

[dburn]

I don't see any ambiguity, but I would be interested to know why Adam thinks the phrase ambiguous.

 

A more complex example of how the process works, or at least how I think it works. Robin is on hand to correct me if I am wrong.

 

At game all, North-South bid to 4♠ with East-West competing in hearts. West doubles slowly, East pulls. 5♥ doubled should be one down, but the defenders revoke and allow it to make. The result at the other table is 4♠ making four, NS +620.

 

5♥ is ruled to contravene Law 16, with pass being a logical alternative. East-West at this table score -790, the result they would have obtained had East passed the double, for 5 IMPs away. North-South at this table would have been +200 had they not revoked, but are in fact -850. Thus, they would have suffered 9 IMPs worth of damage had they defended correctly, but in fact suffered 16 IMPs worth of damage. 7 IMPs of that is therefore "self-inflicted", and they don't obtain redress for that. The net score on the board is therefore 2 IMPs to the offending side.

[jallerton]

The phrase "such part" is not itself ambiguous, but I agree with Robin that it's not always easy to quantify the part of the damage which is deemed to be self-inflicted. If you look at the calculations in some of the examples, there's sometimes too much damage to apportion: I seem to recall that the non-offending side is charged with the full cost of their SE(uttI)WoG action, but it would be entirely logical to calculate this another way.

 

By definition, the damage would not have occurred without the infraction. If a non-offender could have eliminated the damage by taking the correct double dummy action, does that mean that the damage is self-inflicted?

[pran]

The phrase "such part" is not itself ambiguous, but I agree with Robin that it's not always easy to quantify the part of the damage which is deemed to be self-inflicted. If you look at the calculations in some of the examples, there's sometimes too much damage to apportion: I seem to recall that the non-offending side is charged with the full cost of their SE(uttI)WoG action, but it would be entirely logical to calculate this another way.

 

By definition, the damage would not have occurred without the infraction. If a non-offender could have eliminated the damage by taking the correct double dummy action, does that mean that the damaage is self-inflicted?

No, double dummy analysis is based on hindsight, and is as such itself no cause for ruling self-inflicted damage. The director must distinguish between unfortunate actions and wild or gambling actions.

[Trinidad]

A SEWoG is an action that is either an infraction, such as a revoke, or an action of which everybody thinks: "Jeepers, how on Earth did he come up with that?". Taking a wrong line, where a winning line was available is an error, but not a SEWoG. SEWoGs are rarely found in the wild. If you think it is a SEWoG, it probably isn't. If you see a SEWoG, you know it is a SEWoG.

 

When I was a beginner, I committed the classic SEWoG. The opponents had clearly used UI to save in 4♠ against my 4♥. I knew that they weren't allowed to bid 4♠ and that the TD would roll it back to 4♥ if we were damaged. Then it struck me: "If 6♥ is making, I will get a top if I bid it. And if it goes down, I will get the score for 4♥. Heads: I win. Tails: I don't lose." Obviously, the slam went down. I called the TD and when he asked me why I had bid 6♥, I obviously told him. Big smile on the TD's face. He correctly ruled it a SEWoG and explained the rule to me in a friendly manner. I simply hadn't heard of it before.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

A SEWoG is an action that is either an infraction, such as a revoke, or an action of which everybody thinks: "Jeepers, how on Earth did he come up with that?". Taking a wrong line, where a winning line was available is an error, but not a SEWoG. SEWoGs are rarely found in the wild. If you think it is a SEWoG, it probably isn't. If you see a SEWoG, you know it is a SEWoG.

 

When I was a beginner, I committed the classic SEWoG. The opponents had clearly used UI to save in 4♠ against my 4♥. I knew that they weren't allowed to bid 4♠ and that the TD would roll it back to 4♥ if we were damaged. Then it struck me: "If 6♥ is making, I will get a top if I bid it. And if it goes down, I will get the score for 4♥. Heads: I win. Tails: I don't lose." Obviously, the slam went down. I called the TD and when he asked me why I had bid 6♥, I obviously told him. Big smile on the TD's face. He correctly ruled it a SEWoG and explained the rule to me in a friendly manner. I simply hadn't heard of it before.

 

Rik

I like your description, but I think you need to differentiate between "serious error," "wild," and "gambling." These are three distinctly different actions. A revoke is a serious error. Bidding 6♥ in your situation is either wild or gambling, and quite possibly both (you were gambling that your understanding of the law was correct). Note also that a serious error is unrelated to the infraction - it would be very rare that you could claim that you revoked because of an opponent's infraction, but other infractions might be induced by an opponent's infraction. In your case, if 6♥ were to be classed as a serious error, rather than a wild or a gambling action, then you would not lose redress, because you clearly bid 6♥ because of the infraction. "Unrelated to the infraction" applies only to serious errors, not to wild or gambling actions. I think the TD needs to be careful about this differentiation when explaining his ruling to players, too.

[gnasher]

These are laws, after all. They should be "formal" and "lawyerly."

No they shouldn't. They should be, in order of priority, unambiguous, complete, and easy to understand.

 

Pompous language like "it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted" serves no useful purpose. All it does is to reduce the number of players who understand the rules, which is obviously bad for the game.

[ArtK78]

No they shouldn't. They should be, in order of priority, unambiguous, complete, and easy to understand.

 

Pompous language like "it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted" serves no useful purpose. All it does is to reduce the number of players who understand the rules, which is obviously bad for the game.

The point is that the language is unambiguous and complete. The fact that it may not be as easy to understand as language which would not be unambiguous and complete is clearly secondary.

[aguahombre]

This is amusing. The Americans comprehend the English; the British don't like it.

[mycroft]

no; the *Lawyers* comprehend the English - the British don't like the style of their writer (for this context).

 

Yes, two countries divided by a common language an all that - but in this case, it's a third language, learned in Chambers, that is the issue.

[gnasher]

The point is that the language is unambiguous and complete. The fact that it may not be as easy to understand as language which would not be unambiguous and complete is clearly secondary.

No, the point is that the language is unambiguous, complete and pointlessly difficult to understand, whereas it could be unambiguous, complete and easy to understand.

 

Compare these two sentences:

 

"If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted."

 

"If, after the irregularity, the non-offending side made a serious error which was unrelated to the infraction, or took action that was wild or gambling, and this contributed to the damage they suffered, the adjustment does not include rectification for the part of the damage that was self-inflicted."

 

Both are unambiguous and complete. They mean the same thing. Which do you think is easier for an ordinary player or director to understand?

[chrism]

no; the *Lawyers* comprehend the English - the British don't like the style of their writer (for this context).

 

Yes, two countries divided by a common language an all that - but in this case, it's a third language, learned in Chambers, that is the issue.

 

A nice pun for British cryptic crossword enthusiasts.

I am indirectly reminded of one of the nicest cryptic crossword clues of all time, from the mid sixties and referring to a neologism that would soon become universally known:

 

"Abbreviation not found in Chambers, but should not be looked up anyway (9)"

[WellSpyder]

I am indirectly reminded of one of the nicest cryptic crossword clues of all time, from the mid sixties and referring to a neologism that would soon become universally known:

 

"Abbreviation not found in Chambers, but should not be looked up anyway (9)"

I can't find the spoiler, and it is spoiling my morning!

[chrism]

Apologies for the brief thread highjack; normal service will be resumed after this ...

 

I can't find the spoiler, and it is spoiling my morning!

 

The answer is a word not to be found at the time in Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, the definitive word list for many crosswords, including Ximenes, probably the hardest regularly published cryptic at the time (the clue is from a Ximenes).

 

Spoiler:

 

MINISKIRT

 

[blackshoe]

Clever clue, that. I would not have got the answer based on that alone. B-)