SB gets lucky

[barmar]

Honestly I do not understand the purpose of this question.

Are you insinuating something?

I think the point is that there's a difference between what a novice and an experienced player "could have been aware" of -- a novice is less likely to be aware of how his actions would be interpreted by the opponents. When the Law refers to that, are they talking about players in general, or the class of players like the offender.

[pran]

I think the point is that there's a difference between what a novice and an experienced player "could have been aware" of -- a novice is less likely to be aware of how his actions would be interpreted by the opponents. When the Law refers to that, are they talking about players in general, or the class of players like the offender.

There sure is - have I anywhere indicated otherwise?

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that the bridge laws are primarily for non-beginners

I don't know where you get that idea. Nothing in the laws suggests to me that they're not for everybody.

[Trinidad]

"Conventional" does not appear in the Laws

Where did I say that "conventional" needed to be in the laws? I gave examples like "organic" and "mineral". They don't appear in the laws. And in our own field of bridge "conventional" means almost the opposite of what it means in English: In bridge it means: "something special, only after a special agreement, and implicitly deviating from the older default (natural)" whereas in English it means: "the normal, old-fashioned way".

 

And you just need to browse through the water cooler to find examples about misunderstandings about the meaning of the word "theory" in science (when non-scientists think that "theory" in science means what it means in English).

 

In jargon, words often have a meaning that differs from standard language.

 

In bridge laws jargon the construction "could do" (when it refers to a player's thoughts, intents or other things that were going on in the player's mind) it means "we have reasons to believe you did, but we can't prove it and the laws are not going to require us to prove it". It is a very convenient construction: It means that most likely justice can be done, without the need for the TD to accuse anybody of anything and without the need to prove something that can't be proven.

 

This construction serves as a lubricant for TD-ing. But that also means that TDs should use this "could do" power with care: only when they suspect that the player in fact "did".

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

"convention" means "agreement as to meaning".

 

As for "could do", what is the basis for your interpretation?

[lamford]

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.

Clearly the offender refers to North. It seems that the "class" of offender is taken into account in deciding whether he could have been aware. If that is the majority view, then I agree that RR could not have been aware, but a strong player passing out of turn with a weak hand should be treated differently. I have never seen a Law 23 adjustment for a pass out of turn, but maybe they will be given greater scrutiny from now on.

 

On this hand, I think it is clear that there was director error in not allowing East to accept North's second pass out of turn. Does anybody disagree with that and should one therefore award an artificial adjusted score?

[lamford]

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.

In addition to willingness to play in the denomination named, it also conveyed "other information" by agreement, of a solid minor with nothing outside. There was no NS agreement to modify the 3NT opening consequent to North's pass out of turn, so it was artificial and required an alert. If North had been required to pass throughout, then I might agree with you.

[lamford]

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?

Perhaps "normal" play should just require a legal auction (including unlimited withdrawn or accepted IBs or COOTs) using a complete correct deck, followed by 13 tricks of 4 cards each (or a claim earlier than that) with up to 26 MPCs. It should be defined in the Laws, of course.