SB gets lucky

[lamford]

OK, so then what does the "well" qualifier in "could well damage" mean? I still think that it should only be applicable when there's a reasonable expectation of damage.

The way Law 23 is worded, the probability of damage has to be reasonably likely, not the probability of awareness. North had a 0-count. There was a reasonable probability that silencing himself would benefit the NOS (although not in the way it did). There does not need to be a high probability that this particular North could have been aware of that. Just some chance, for the TD to judge.

[sanst]

What about leading the Ace of Clubs? Now it doesn't matter which diamond he plays in trick two.

Although it's not possible, at least for me, to completely ignore the actual layout once I know it, I might consider leading the ace of clubs which could well be the suit which my partner holds. After that I would play the king of diamonds. But SB's remark about the non alert of 3NT with his not asked for explanation - another infraction - might lead to the rejection of that lead. He certainly tries to put W on the wrong footing, implying that he has solid clubs. This IS an infraction which should be remedied by Law 23. The longer I think about it, the more I'm inclined to go for some weighted score with 3NT= and 3NT-3.

Or do you think the lead of ♣A is only for the likes of Zia (or Fischer-Schwartz)?

[blackshoe]

"Could have been" indicates possibility. "Could well" indicates a high probability. So there are two questions to be answered in applying this law: did the OS gain an advantage from the irregularity, and might the offender have seen that there was a high probability of damage from the irregularity.

 

If there was no damage, there was no gain, and Law 23 does not apply. If there was not a high probability of damage, Law 23 does not apply. If the offender doesn't have sufficient perception to be aware of a high probability of damage, Law 23 does not apply. If there was damage, and a high probability that the irregularity would cause it, and the offender had the perceptive ability required to see that probability, then Law 23 applies.

 

In many cases, offender's perceptive ability, or lack of it, will render Law 23 moot.

[lamford]

Or do you think the lead of ♣A is only for the likes of Zia (or Fischer-Schwartz)?

I would not lead the ace of clubs if I had seen all four hands, as, if I did so, everyone would know I had seen all four hands.

 

And nobody was misled by SB's remark about the alert of 3NT, which was a self-confessed attempt to belittle or confuse the TD, and to make him feel even smaller than he already felt. He was also fully aware that an opening 3NT which was systemic required an alert under the EBU Blue Book, and there was no exemption for someone silenced by an infraction, so he DID have a duty to advise the opponents. Both opponents knew from their minor-suit holdings that SB did not have a solid minor.

[lamford]

In many cases, offender's perceptive ability, or lack of it, will render Law 23 moot.

This is where we differ. I don't think the purpose of Law 23 is to decide on the offender's perceptive ability. If it were, then the "well" would come before "be aware". And I don't think that the ability of North matters one iota. I think "could have been aware" should be interpreted as "a very strong cheat holding the North cards could have been aware". This is borne out by the majority view, on both this forum and on another forum, of the case with QJTxx opposite Axxxx, where someone drops two small cards when the queen is led. If you think that the strength of the defender dropping two small cards, we hope by accident, matters, then you would indeed rule in this case that RR could not have been aware. However, I think that, if SB were North, and in a purported rare moment of inattention he passed out of turn, you would be quick to rule that he "could have been aware".

[blackshoe]

I hope that I am never quick to rule that Law 23 applies. As for the SB, his perceptive ability seems pretty good, generally. Should a momentary lapse exempt him from "could have known"?

[pran]

I hope that I am never quick to rule that Law 23 applies. As for the SB, his perceptive ability seems pretty good, generally. Should a momentary lapse exempt him from "could have known"?

"could have known" is based on the assumption that the offender has his wits, so a momentary lapse is no excuse.

 

But Law 23 is no "automatic" law and like you I am never quick to apply it (if in doubt).

[lamford]

"could have known" is based on the assumption that the offender has his wits, so a momentary lapse is no excuse.

 

But Law 23 is no "automatic" law and like you I am never quick to apply it (if in doubt).

Should you, and do you, take into account the ability of the person who "could have been aware"?

[barmar]

The way Law 23 is worded, the probability of damage has to be reasonably likely, not the probability of awareness. North had a 0-count. There was a reasonable probability that silencing himself would benefit the NOS (although not in the way it did). There does not need to be a high probability that this particular North could have been aware of that. Just some chance, for the TD to judge.

So any time a player with a Yarborough passes out of turn, we vacate the result if his partner guesses right? I don't buy it.

 

There's also a very good chance that partner will guess wrong when he's forced to set the contract himself. He doesn't know you have a zero-count. Isn't the fact that you don't have an opening hand UI to him (your enforced pass is AI, but not the reason), so it seems like it may be even MORE likely to get you too high by barring yourself?

[gordontd]

In that case I have no idea what the phrase means. As it seems that you do, perhaps you will reply to my request in #3 for an example of where normal play is not possible, rather than wrongly surmise that I already know.

I have known TDs rule that way when a player has 13 penalty cards, but I think that normal play is still possible by use of the MPC laws. However, I have been to a table where each player had a different number of cards, none of them could remember the order of play and there was some dispute over what the contract was. I ruled there that normal play was not possible.

[Trinidad]

The way Law 23 is worded, the probability of damage has to be reasonably likely, not the probability of awareness.

You have to interpret a text in its context. And the context in this case is that we are dealing with bridge laws where the word "could" has a meaning that is slightly different from everyday English. (BTW, the effect of words getting a slightly different meaning depending on the context is very common. It happens in every field. Think of words like: "mineral", "organic", "normal", or to stay with bridge: "conventional").

 

In everyday English "could" can refer to something extremely unlikely, as long as it is not impossible: "A North-London bridge club could be hit by an earthquake tomorrow at 1PM."

 

In the laws it refers to something that -in the opinion of the TD- might well be actually the case, but for which he doesn't have evidence (and for which evidence is very hard to obtain). A TD cannot prove what a player was thinking, whether the thinking was about how to take advantage of UI or how to gain advantage from an infraction, or something else. Therefore, the burden of proof is removed from the TD and the word "could" is used. This means that the TD has to use his judgement with care. A mere unlikely possibility is enough for "could" in everyday English, but not enough for "could" in Bridge Law Speak. A TD needs to actually think that the possibility was more than realistic, but he doesn't need to prove anything.

 

Rik

[pran]

"could have known" is based on the assumption that the offender has his wits, so a momentary lapse is no excuse.

 

But Law 23 is no "automatic" law and like you I am never quick to apply it (if in doubt).

Should you, and do you, take into account the ability of the person who "could have been aware"?

Honestly I do not understand the purpose of this question.

Are you insinuating something?

[lamford]

I have known TDs rule that way when a player has 13 penalty cards, but I think that normal play is still possible by use of the MPC laws. However, I have been to a table where each player had a different number of cards, none of them could remember the order of play and there was some dispute over what the contract was. I ruled there that normal play was not possible.

[hv=pc=n&w=sq6hdjt9c98765432&e=s93h8765d8765432c]266|100[/hv]

So, as you would rule that normal play was possible if one hand had 13 penalty cards, you would presumably also rule that normal play was still possible by use of the MPC laws on this hand where North-South have 26 penalty cards (all prematurely exposed during the auction) but EW can make Six Spades? It does not look that normal to me!

 

It seems to me that the bridge laws are primarily for non-beginners, and I cannot recall an occasion where the auction or play has not been recalled by one player at the table. Are you not supposed to decide what happened and rule according to the balance of probabilities? Surely "normal play" is not just intended for when all four players are novices? In the example you gave, where there was even some dispute over what the contract was, I do not think any rectification will permit "play", regardless of the word "normal". I still do not understand how "normal play" is defined.

[lamford]

Honestly I do not understand the purpose of this question.

Are you insinuating something?

Why do you think that? I asked a "normal" question as to whether the TD should take into account the ability of the offender in deciding whether he "could have been aware".

[lamford]

A TD cannot prove what a player was thinking, whether the thinking was about how to take advantage of UI or how to gain advantage from an infraction, or something else.<snip>A mere unlikely possibility is enough for "could" in everyday English, but not enough for "could" in Bridge Law Speak. A TD needs to actually think that the possibility was more than realistic, but he doesn't need to prove anything.

It seems that the law is being interpreted as "could be trying to get an unfair advantage", whereas I don't think it should be. We do not rule, "He seems an honest chap and would not cough at the wrong time; I don't think he could have been aware that dropping the ace of trumps accidentally would work to his advantage. I am going to rule that his partner is not obliged to "Phantomsac" with 7S over 7H."

 

This is, for me, the wrong approach. A cheat could have been aware that the action could well damage the NOS. The law is phrased to avoid the stigma attached to an allegation of cheating. "Could have been aware" means exactly what it does in everyday English. "Could well have been aware" means what you think "could have been aware" means.

[lamford]

There's also a very good chance that partner will guess wrong when he's forced to set the contract himself. He doesn't know you have a zero-count. Isn't the fact that you don't have an opening hand UI to him (your enforced pass is AI, but not the reason), so it seems like it may be even MORE likely to get you too high by barring yourself?

Not according to a US director, who thinks that partner should assume we have one third of the remaining points which are not in his hand (that is all he can glean from the AI). Partner will also have one third of the remaining points on average. When partner guesses the final contract, his correct game theory approach is to only bid 3NT with 18 points as he then thinks that you have 7.33, and, given the risk of being doubled, maybe he should have a tad more.

 

Partner's average is 13.33. On these hands he should now pass, as there is unlikely to be a game on, and he has no idea what you have. Your enforced silence stops him getting into trouble on these hands, particularly if he is in his NT range. The same arguments apply with all hands in the 0-6 range. You want to force partner to guess to pass, which he will do with the AI. Therefore you pass out of turn. Were it not for 72B1, it would be a good gambit to pass out of turn on 0-6. Worse still, failure to pass out of turn would suggest 7-11.

 

With 7-11 it is bonkers to pass out of turn. Partner has to guess the final contract and we would have had a constructive auction, possibly to slam.

 

So, I would rule that a Probst cheat who could have done the analysis "could have been aware" when he has a very bad hand. But "could not have been aware" when he has "intermediate pass"!

[pran]

Why do you think that? I asked a "normal" question as to whether the TD should take into account the ability of the offender in deciding whether he "could have been aware".

"normal question"?

 

Of course a TD should take into consideration (account) all circumstances that he finds relevant.

 

Do you for any moment think differently and why do you ask?

[lamford]

"normal question"?

 

Of course a TD should take into consideration (account) all circumstances that he finds relevant.

 

Do you for any moment think differently and why do you ask?

Because there appears to be a school of thought that "could have been aware" is independent of the player's ability, and there is a school of thought that "could have been aware" applies to the player in question only. There is a massive difference. On this hand, a North "could have been aware", but the Rueful Rabbit "could not have been aware".

[Trinidad]

Because there appears to be a school of thought that "could have been aware" is independent of the player's ability, and there is a school of thought that "could have been aware" applies to the player in question only. There is a massive difference. On this hand, a North "could have been aware", but the Rueful Rabbit "could not have been aware".

Pran already answered that the TD is supposed to take all circumstances into account. And, of course, who committed the infraction is one of the relevant circumstances.

 

If the player is a clueless R.R. then he could not have been aware, since R.R. is never aware of anything. If the player is H.H. then he must have been aware, since H.H. doesn't make mistakes and does everything for a reason.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

It seems that the law is being interpreted as "could be trying to get an unfair advantage", whereas I don't think it should be. We do not rule, "He seems an honest chap and would not cough at the wrong time; I don't think he could have been aware that dropping the ace of trumps accidentally would work to his advantage. I am going to rule that his partner is not obliged to "Phantomsac" with 7S over 7H."

 

This is, for me, the wrong approach. A cheat could have been aware that the action could well damage the NOS. The law is phrased to avoid the stigma attached to an allegation of cheating. "Could have been aware" means exactly what it does in everyday English. "Could well have been aware" means what you think "could have been aware" means.

And "conventional" also means what it means in English?

 

TDs have been working for years with the meaning of "could" (when referring to what goes on in a player's brain) as "something you think is reasonably likely, but that you can't prove". Why? Because jargon is not the same as plain English.

 

Rik

[pran]

And "conventional" also means what it means in English?

According to my dictionaries synonyms for "convention" are "formal agreement" or "accepted custom" and "conventional" is the corresponding adjective.

 

IMHO this is a very precise interpretation of the words "convention" and "conventional".

 

I believe there is a very good reason why the laws do not use these words as contrasts to "natural" but instead use the word "artificial".

[lamford]

And "conventional" also means what it means in English?

"Conventional" does not appear in the Laws; "Artificial" does (37 times including the index) and that is defined in the definitions at the beginning. [under that definition, the 3NT opener in this example was artificial, and it did require an alert as per the Blue Book, as East might have doubled, and North would then have had an opportunity to bid, so he could not conclude that South was selecting the final contract. Perhaps EW should record the psyche of 3NT, fielded by North who passed it! :o - (a joke - for sanst's benefit)] It also appears that there was TD error in not offering East an opportunity to accept North's second pass out of turn (even though forced). Law 29A does not make an exception for a pass when obliged to pass. East might double and West could not be deprived of his call, so there would then be three more calls, and North would now become unsilenced. North, being a rabbit, might now bid 4C, as he does not want to play in 3NT opposite a "gambling" 3NT. East would double and I think that is -1400 as declarer can only make the major-suit aces and kings.

 

Law 23 does indeed say "in the opinion of the Director". Clearly Trinidad and pran would both rule differently depending on who committed the infraction. Is that the view of other TDs, and is there any case law on this? And, where a word or phrase is not in the definitions, it should take its normal English meaning (in an bridge context of course).

Edited September 21, 2015 by lamford

[sanst]

Under that definition, the 3NT opener in this example was artificial, and it did require an alert as per the Blue Book, as East might have doubled, and North would then have had an opportunity to bid, so he could not conclude that South was selecting the final contract. Perhaps EW should record the psyche of 3NT, fielded by North who passed it! .

From the definitions: "Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named". Since there is certainly the possibility that S will become the declarer in 3NT(x), he has shown the willingness to play in the denomination named. By this definition it's no artificial call and hence not alertable. That it's a fielded psyche, fielded by a player who has to pass, is utter nonsense.

[Coelacanth]

I am pleased that you were not entirely serious about any penalty for a mythical character, and I think that those who are wasting time on assessing penalties on him all the time are achieving nothing. They should take up role-play games instead of bridge. I do not think SB's behaviour should deny him redress.

 

It is not for me to decide whether "normal play" is important under the current laws. The Lawmakers have done that for me and decided it is:

12A2. The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board.

 

On this hand no rectification permits normal play of the board, but it might have done. If South did not have an opening bid, the board would have proceeded normally, and the director should judge that the rectification permits normal play. If South had opened 1NT and West overcalled 3D, that would have led to normal play. When South opens 3NT, it is no longer possible for there to be normal play.

 

Do you consider it right to ignore 12A2?

In looking through the Laws, I can find no definition of what constitutes "normal" play. Yes, 12A2 sets forth a course of action when "normal" play is impossible, but it does not define what "normal" is.

 

Here, we have an irregularity, and a rectification has been applied in accordance with L29 and L30. It seems to me that this is entirely "normal"; it's the expected resolution of an auction which begins with an opening pass OOT.

 

Suppose that, instead of passing, RR had opened 7NT OOT, quickly accepted and doubled by E. Clearly this is not a "normal" result, but would you assign an artificial 12A2 score in place of the score for 7NTX down however many tricks it went down?

 

We now return to our regularly scheduled L23 discussion.

[VixTD]

Clearly Trinidad and pran would both rule differently depending on who committed the infraction. Is that the view of other TDs, and is there any case law on this?

That is certainly my view. I don't know of any case law, but I can't see any other reasonable way of interpreting that law. If "an offender" does not refer to the person who committed the irregularity, to whom else might it refer? I think if there were a general standard of awareness that should be applied in all cases, regardless of who the offender is, I would have heard about it.