[blackshoe]

Deleted a duplicate post. I have no idea what happened there either.

[lamford]

pran, on 2015-September-19, 15:27, said:

Any lead other than a heart or a honour in diamonds will hold South to 6 tricks!

I would have thought you do not need a double-dummy solver to realise that only an improbable low diamond beats 3NT, or declarer has nine major-suit tricks.

[pran]

lamford, on 2015-September-19, 15:48, said:

I would have thought you do not need a double-dummy solver to realise that only an improbable low diamond beats 3NT, or declarer has nine major-suit tricks.

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

[lamford]

pran, on 2015-September-19, 17:44, said:

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

I agree, but that is just as improbable as a low diamond, as it uses his presumed entry. And any major suit lead is nine tricks.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2015-September-18, 09:31, said:

I would agree with you if the Law stated: "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could well have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could damage the non-offending side <snip>."

Instead it says: "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side <snip>."

So, there is only a requirement that the person "could have been aware", not "could well have been aware". I don't see any practical difference between "could conceivably be", "could possibly be" and "could be". I agree that TDs have to interpret "could have been aware" and that must be "a significant chance" that the person could have been aware. Surely, someone with a balanced 0 count could be aware that an enforced pass might well damage the NOS in many ways, if not in the way it did.

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. Otherwise, we could invoke this Law for practically any infraction, since there's always a possibility that it could work out to the offender's benefit. If the Lawmakers wanted to prevent the offenders from ever gaining, they could have written that much more simply. By wording it in terms of what a player could be aware of, I think they really meant it to apply only when one might be able to predict such damage.

Quote

And you did not comment on whether you thought rectification permitted "normal" play of the board.

I don't recall being asked that. I can pick and choose which points I wish to address.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2015-September-19, 20:37, said:

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]

pran, on 2015-September-19, 17:44, said:

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]

sanst, on 2015-September-20, 05:21, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2015-September-20, 11:29, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2015-September-20, 14:38, said:

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]

pran, on 2015-September-20, 15:48, said:

"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]

lamford, on 2015-September-20, 03:35, said:

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]

lamford, on 2015-September-19, 12:10, said:

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]

lamford, on 2015-September-20, 03:35, said:

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]

lamford, on 2015-September-20, 16:06, said:

pran, on 2015-September-20, 15:48, said:

"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]

gordontd, on 2015-September-21, 00:31, said:

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.

---

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]

pran, on 2015-September-21, 02:32, said:

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]

Trinidad, on 2015-September-21, 01:57, said:

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.