Simultaneous opening calls out of rotation

[barmar]

This is why the Probst Cheat criteria is such a horrible policy. Hasn't it been invalidated?

[axman]

The law doesn't provide for untangling multiple COOTS by one side if they are out of turn and non-simultaneous: if one call is accepted what happens to the other call(s).

 

I seem to be aware of some doctrine that says multiple irregularities are addressed in their chronological order. My mind is that such a thought is rubbish, but that is not to say that rules can be made willy nilly. But, you are probably right that the simultaneous aspect presents insurmountable problems even then.

 

Generally, my thinking is that most multiple irregularities ought to be resolved in reverse chronology. It being problematic when there are simultaneous irregularities. My thinking is that the law needs to provide a good mechanism for breaking the tie. For instance, when fixing which came first, it is the player in closest proximity in rotation to the rightful turn. That way, there is a methodical route to backtrack. But, if the rightful player is involved, particularly when he is nearly simultaneous but distinctly after, there are additional issues.

 

 

But then, there are real problems with the definition of the first call (L17B) and the second call (17C) when they are made by other than the specified individuals. And to a large extent, that is a problem with what the law doesn't do.

 

if one call is accepted what happens to the other call(s).

 

I suspect that no one wants to hear the answer to that, at least the way the law is presently constructed.

[lamford]

This is why the Probst Cheat criteria is such a horrible policy. Hasn't it been invalidated?

Not at all. It could be argued that an infraction should never gain and that if it does, the perpetrator could have been aware that it would. It did happen, therefore could have happened before, and Sharp and Keen might be out there waiting for their next opportunity.

 

Others, including I believe gordontd and RMB1, believe that "could have been aware" in Law 23 should be interpreted as "could reasonably have been aware". If that is the case, why does Law 23 just say "could have been aware"?

[gordontd]

If that is the case, why does Law 23 just say "could have been aware"?

Surely you, and most readers here, know the laws better than to have to ask that? One might conversely ask, if anyone always could have been aware, why does the law need to mention awareness at all?

[lamford]

Surely you, and most readers here, know the laws better than to have to ask that? One might conversely ask, if anyone always could have been aware, why does the law need to mention awareness at all?

In my view, the purpose of Law 23 is to distinguish between conscious acts which gain, when someone "could have been aware" and accidents, such as dropping a card of honour rank. In the latter case, the person could not have been aware, because there was no intention to drop the card of honour rank, therefore awareness cannot be present. And it us up to the TD to decide whether the accident was deliberate, and fortunately most people are honest. You would not punish someone for causing death in a road accident when a wheel came off a fully serviced vehicle, but you might well do so when someone drove at 60 mph in a 30 mph zone. The sole purpose of Law 23 should be to distinguish between intentional and accidental acts, and the former includes carelessness and inattention where someone could have been aware it would gain.

 

Would you punish someone who "accidentally" dropped the ace of trumps when their partner was considering a sacrifice at the seven level? If you considered, on the balance of probability, that it was not a "conscious act", then you should not do so, as awareness is not possible.

[gordontd]

In my view, the purpose of Law 23 is to distinguish between conscious acts which gain, when someone "could have been aware" and accidents, such as dropping a card of honour rank. In the latter case, the person could not have been aware, because there was no intention to drop the card of honour rank, therefore awareness cannot be present. And it us up to the TD to decide whether the accident was deliberate, and fortunately most people are honest. You would not punish someone for causing death in a road accident when a wheel came off a fully serviced vehicle, but you might well do so when someone drove at 60 mph in a 30 mph zone. The sole purpose of Law 23 should be to distinguish between intentional and accidental acts, and the former includes carelessness and inattention where someone could have been aware it would gain.

 

Would you punish someone who "accidentally" dropped the ace of trumps when their partner was considering a sacrifice at the seven level? If you considered, on the balance of probability, that it was not a "conscious act", then you should not do so, as awareness is not possible.

That law could have been written with that sole intention, but in my opinion it wasn't. Had it been, I can't help feeling it would have used words like "unintended", as elsewhere.

[pran]

That law could have been written with that sole intention, but in my opinion it wasn't. Had it been, I can't help feeling it would have used words like "unintended", as elsewhere.

The "could have known" clause was inserted in order to avoid any implied accusation of (deliberate) cheating when ruling on an irregularity.

[lamford]

That law could have been written with that sole intention, but in my opinion it wasn't. Had it been, I can't help feeling it would have used words like "unintended", as elsewhere.

It is also possible that they meant "could have" to mean "with any possibility whatsoever", however small. I could have won the lottery on all of the last four occasions I bought a ticket ...

 

And I think that you give the WBFLC far too much credit for their selection of words in the Laws.

[barmar]

The "could have known" clause was inserted in order to avoid any implied accusation of (deliberate) cheating when ruling on an irregularity.

Also, I think, to avoid requiring mind-reading (or dependence on self-serving statements about the player's state of mind) by saying "were aware". So it's more like the definition of LA in the UI law, where we consider what a hypothetical player would do rather than trying to determine what the actual player was thinking.

 

I've stated many times that I don't think "could have known" includes remote possibilities, because that opens the floodgates to almost any conclusion and makes that qualification practically meaningless.

[gordontd]

And I think that you give the WBFLC far too much credit for their selection of words in the Laws.

On the contrary, it was you who started by saying

 

why does Law 23 just say "could have been aware"?

 

and it was I replied

 

Surely you, and most readers here, know the laws better than to have to ask that?

 

Perhaps I should have spelled it out even more clearly?

[blackshoe]

Not at all. It could be argued that an infraction should never gain and that if it does, the perpetrator could have been aware that it would. It did happen, therefore could have happened before, and Sharp and Keen might be out there waiting for their next opportunity.

 

Others, including I believe gordontd and RMB1, believe that "could have been aware" in Law 23 should be interpreted as "could reasonably have been aware". If that is the case, why does Law 23 just say "could have been aware"?

One could argue that "could have been aware" is equivalent to "was aware", which seems to be what you're doing. But that one could argue something or other doesn't make it true.

[blackshoe]

The "could have known" clause was inserted in order to avoid any implied accusation of (deliberate) cheating when ruling on an irregularity.

Opinion, or fact? If the latter, based on what?

[Vampyr]

One could argue that "could have been aware" is equivalent to "was aware", which seems to be what you're doing. But that one could argue something or other doesn't make it true.

 

Yeah, it looks to me as if lamford is arguing the exact opposite. LOL no, I have not asked him. But based on his posts in this thread and others, I am certain that you are mistaken

 

In any case, it seems that the Laws really do need to address simultaneous and multiple infractions.

[lamford]

One could argue that "could have been aware" is equivalent to "was aware", which seems to be what you're doing. But that one could argue something or other doesn't make it true.

No, I am arguing that "could have been aware" is not being interpreted correctly. It is being interpreted as "there is a reasonable possibility that someone could have been aware". It does not say that. It should be interpreted literally, that, if there was a possibility, however remote, that someone could have been aware that his infraction could benefit his side, the TD rules against him or her. If the TD is satisified that an action was "involuntary", it fails the "could have been aware" test.

 

'If I'd meant that, I'd have said it,' said Humpty Dumpty.

[lamford]

Perhaps I should have spelled it out even more clearly?

Indeed, I for one did not understand the point you were making. You wrote "That law could have been written with that sole intention, but in my opinion it wasn't. Had it been, I can't help feeling it would have used words like "unintended", as elsewhere."

 

Your speculation on what the WBFLC might have done if their intention had been different serves no purpose. You did not address the main issue; the words of Law 23 are not being applied literally. "Could have been aware" is a simple enough phrase.

[pran]

Opinion, or fact? If the latter, based on what?

My own memory from many (some 30?) years ago.

 

Others may have better memory; as far as I can remember there had been a controversial ruling in UK where involved players wanted to press charges on an allegation of slander because (as they claimed) they had been accused of cheating.

 

We were told at some convention here in Norway that the "could have known" clause was subsequently added just for that reason.

[lamford]

My own memory from many (some 30?) years ago.

 

Others may have better memory; as far as I can remember there had been a controversial ruling in UK where involved players wanted to press charges on an allegation of slander because (as they claimed) they had been accused of cheating.

 

We were told at some convention here in Norway that the "could have known" clause was subsequently added just for that reason.

Is that the one where some Americans thought that some British player could have been aware how many hearts his partner held?

[pran]

Is that the one where some Americans thought that some British player could have been aware how many hearts his partner held?

I don't remember and I don't care.

IMHO the history itself is irrelevant.

What is important is that the word "cheat" cannot be found in the laws. (I just did a search!)

[blackshoe]

If the TD is satisified that an action was "involuntary", it fails the "could have been aware" test.

"If and only if"?

[Vampyr]

My own memory from many (some 30?) years ago.

 

Others may have better memory; as far as I can remember there had been a controversial ruling in UK where involved players wanted to press charges on an allegation of slander because (as they claimed) they had been accused of cheating.

 

We were told at some convention here in Norway that the "could have known" clause was subsequently added just for that reason.

 

This makes sense, and seems to favour Paul's interpretation rather than Gordon's.

 

In any case, how do we rule when A. Player would certainly be aware, but the player is question is not known to ever be aware of anything?

[Vampyr]

"If and only if"?

 

I think lamford's "however remote" is a bit of an overbid. Suppose partner passes and you pass. I would apply L23 if you had a weak NT. I would not apply it if you had a 2♣ opener.

[lamford]

"If and only if"?

If the TD judges, on the balance of probabilities, according to the principles in Law 85A1, that the person could have been aware. If someone bids out of turn, they always "could have been aware".

[blackshoe]

If the TD judges, on the balance of probabilities, according to the principles in Law 85A1, that the person could have been aware. If someone bids out of turn, they always "could have been aware".

And we're back to "could have known" is the same as "did know". :(

[pran]

And we're back to "could have known" is the same as "did know". :(

Certainly not.

The point with "could have known" is that there is no need to show he (probably) did know.

 

I agree that a clearly unintended violation of law very unlikely can qualify for the "could have known" clause, but I shall not entirely dismiss the possibility.

[barmar]

'If I'd meant that, I'd have said it,' said Humpty Dumpty.

I think a modicum of common sense has to be applied when reading the laws. If you allow any remote possibility, you can be aware of almost anything, so practically nothing is excluded by that requirement. Then if one of those remote possibilities arises, you throw the book at them.