BBO Discussion Forums: Could he have known ... - BBO Discussion Forums

Table result: NS+800

RR opened 1S out of turn, as North, on this hand from the North London club annual teams, and the TD was called. This was not accepted by TT, East, and the TD told South that the 1S bid was UI to him. South passed and West, SB, opened 1NT. The TD stated that North could make any call he liked, but if this was not a "comparable call" to 1S, then South would be silenced throughout. "Can I double?" asked RR, as he had years of experience under the old laws of being unable to substitute a double for his insufficient bids. "Yes, you can," replied OO,"but I think that cannot be a comparable call, as it shows typically 15+, but without necessarily any spades, so your partner will be silenced, for one round". That suited RR just fine, as he had high hopes of defeating 1NT and he doubled and this ended the auction. Declarer made the obvious four tricks, and at most tables North had drifted one off in 4S on a trump lead or diamond lead and trump switch.

SB was furious. He quoted 72C in full without pause for breath:

"If the Director determines that an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that it could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue - open brackets - if not completed - close brackets. At the conclusion of play the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity."

"That is clearly the case here," he concluded. "RR could have known that if 1NT was opened on his right, and he doubled, his partner "could well" - note the expression - run to diamonds, and this was undesirable. It did not cost RR anything to open 1S out of turn - in fact it gained, and he "could well" have known it would gain."

How do you rule? OO was minded to decide that RR could not have been aware of anything, but went away to consult.

[Based on an actual ruling in the Commonwealth Teams Championship]

lamford, on 2018-February-16, 14:34, said:

Let us have a clear line of reasoning here:

The irregularity in question was the opening bid (1♠) out of turn and the reasoning for applying Law 72C seems to be that the offender could (at the time of this irregularity) have planned for the following sequence of events:

The opening bid out of turn will not be accepted - and
South will pass at his first turn to call - and
West will then make an opening bid of 1NT.

North can now safely double the 1NT opening bid by West knowing that South will have to pass

I find to many concurrent but independent events to happen here in order for the "could have known" condition to apply.

Even more significant to me is the fact that West at the time he made his 1NT bid knew that North has values for an opening bid of 1♠ (making a 1NT opening bid an extremely risky business)

I see no reason for any adjustment to the table result.

pran, on 2018-February-16, 16:02, said:

The 1S bid is authorised to East-West and unauthorised to North-South. West presumably planned to open 1NT and make a takeout double of a likely 2S overcall, getting his hand across well. So, I think that opening 1NT was normal. It strikes me as quite wrong (and bizarre) that 23C says:

If following the substitution of a comparable call [see Laws 27B1(b), 30B1(b)(i), 31A2(a) and 32A2(a)] the Director judges at the end of the play that without the assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged, he shall award an adjusted score [see Law 12C1(b)].

It should not matter one iota whether a comparable or non-comparable call has been substituted, and this should read:
If the Director judges at the end of the play that without the assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged, he shall award an adjusted score [see Law 12C1(b)].

Then there is no need to rely on 72C. And the above should apply to all infractions. Why only when a comparable call is substituted?

I am not sure one can adjust, however, under the laws as they stand. In which case North loses nothing by deliberately opening 1S out of turn.

SB seems to spend an awful lot of his time "furious". Someone should tell him it's not good for his blood pressure.

Sorry SB, I'm not ruling in your favor on this one. You know damn well RR doesn't think that way.

Your not allowed to bar your partner and then double (which i assume is pen)

steve2005, on 2018-February-16, 21:27, said:

That used to be the rule, as the rabbit often found out, but I don't think it is now.

lamford, on 2018-February-16, 16:51, said:

The fact that the 1♠ "opening" bid by North is unauthorized to North/South is immaterial here. West was "warned", and made his own 1NT opening bid at his own risk.

For the alleged "plot" by North to work he needed a lot of cooperation from (particularly) West, and North had little reason to expect that this would really work out.

West dug his own grave.

pran, on 2018-February-17, 02:26, said:

The fact that West knew North had an opening bid should not deter him from opening 1NT. It should encourage him, in fact, as North may well have no comparable call (playing multi-Landy for example). The "could have been aware" clause should be interpreted very loosely as "it is conceivable that North was aware", otherwise we create a cheat's charter. I would apply Law 72C to almost all infractions that gain. I see no reason at all for the need for awareness; several people think that if an infraction gains, "rub of the green" is contrary to natural justice.

lamford, on 2018-February-17, 03:45, said:

"You could have known (that I would do whatever possible to help you gain from your irregularity)?"

Sorry Mac, Law 72C isn't intended - and doesn't work that way.

lamford, on 2018-February-16, 14:34, said:

If you used SB's reasoning to think this should apply, then you'd apply this law nearly all the time.

It is ludicrous to suggest North bid out of turn with the thought he may later nail an opponent for a penalty, when by doing so he may easily miss a slam if his partner had a moderate hand.

lamford, on 2018-February-17, 03:45, said:

if the lawmakers had intended for this to be applied so generously, they would have simply said that if you commit an infraction you can't gain. The point of the "could have known" qualifier is so that you don't lose all "rub of the green" achievements, you only get nailed if you could have a reasonable expectation of gain from your action. As pointed out, for this BOOT to gain you need quite a parlay, the chance of it succeeding is quite low. It's like saying that someone buying a lottery ticket could have known that they would win -- all they know is that they have a minute chance of winning, not that they actually would win.

And not only did West know that North had an opening bid, but also that he has length in West's weakest suit.

Well I can't define 'could have known', but I can spot it when I see it!

I suppose technically RR 'could have known', just like a boulder 'could roll uphill' if all the atoms in it moved in the same direction at the same time. However being pragmatic we should draw the line somewhere. In Jure Non Remota Causa Sed Proxima Spectatur.

barmar, on 2018-February-17, 16:35, said:

West's choice of 1NT is irrelevant. Even Cyberyeti would not think it was ESEWoG.

Let us say that Charlie the Chimp was North, and he quickly thinks as follows: "I see that Barry is TD today. I know that I can get away with 1S out of turn. If my partner opens the bidding, I will always have a comparable call as we play strong jump shifts, and that will be a subset of the original 1S bid. If my partner opens 1NT, I can bid 3S, a slam try in spades, and that again is a subset. So there is no loss in opening 1S out of turn. Let us say partner passes, again no loss. If RHO opens 1 of a suit, I can overcall 4S and that is likely to be the best contract opposite a passed partner. If my RHO opens 1NT, I can double, and that again is great as I don't want partner to pull. If LHO accepts 1S that is great too, as this will be easier to bid as dealer." "Heads I win, tails I win" If Barry says, "This seems to be another of your tricks, again, Charlie", I will just reply "Prove it". And if North had made an insufficient bid of 1S over 1NT (not noticing the 1NT bid) and then substituted double, that would have been cancelled (this may have been the situation steve2005 was thinking about above):

27B3: except as provided in B1(b) above, if the offender attempts to substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid the attempted call is cancelled. The
offender must replace it as the foregoing allows and his partner must then pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26B may apply, and
see Law 72C.

What is the logic in allowing someone to replace a BOOT with double, silencing his partner, but not allowing someone to replace an IB with a double, silencing his partner? Had I posted a different scenario, with the Chimp North, deliberately opening 1S out of turn, you would have been down on him like a ton of bricks, either using 72C or, I think better:

12A2 The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below).

Normal play of the board is for South to pull the double of 1NT to 2D. When doubling, North knew that this could not happen. His own BOOT was also UI to North himself as he is a member of the offending side, so double uses the UI that he had opened 1S and that double is not a comparable call.

I think you are all quite wrong in failing to adjust this, and wrongly influenced by the dramatis personae.

The law-makers are doing a great job of delegating power to directors

I'm with Lamford that adjustment is called for. Here's a clear case of an infraction that benefits the offending side and even without the reasoning in #13 this makes an AS necessary. The question is which law justifies this. For that I look at Law 12B1 "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non‐offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." Therefore there's no need to use the 'could have been aware' argument and I change the result in 4♠-1.

lamford, on 2018-February-17, 17:09, said:

If an adjusted score is given on this one due to "could have known....", then it is very likely all kinds of circular and warped logic can find in some way that a player COULD have known his infraction could have been beneficial to his side, and we'd rule a potential adjusted score on the large majority of calls out of turn.

This is NOT what the lawmakers intended.

lamford, on 2018-February-17, 17:09, said:

The Law says "could have been aware that it could well damage the NOS". So it's not just enough that he can imagine ways that it doesn't lose, he has to be aware that it would actually damage the opponents. "Damage" in the Laws refers to a poorer result than would have been obtained without the irregularity. In most of the above logic, he just manages to achieve a similar result than without the BOOT. Indeed, that's the idea behind the "comparable call" requirement in the Law.

You've written dozens of stories where RR did something stupid and it happened to work out in his favor. But being able to imagine something like this is not the same thing as being aware that your action could well damage the opponents -- the extent of your imagination means that you should never be allowed to succeed after an irregularity.

sanst, on 2018-February-18, 06:16, said:

I am 100% with you on this and barmar is completely wrong. When there is an infraction and it gains, you adjust. However RMB1 and gordontd both believe there is need for awareness. The first part of 12B clarifies the intent:
"The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction."

There is no mention of the need for "awareness" in 12B, and I, for one, will always rule that an infraction which gains, however "luckily", is rectified. Brian Senior would also always rule this way on an AC. When does "could have been aware" apply? A common application is when someone breaks tempo to give count with two small when a jack is led towards AKxx. Here there is no "infraction", although I think there is an irregularity in a potential breach of 73D, so we have to use Law 72C. Where there is an infraction, such as a BOOT, LOOT or anything creating an MPC, there is no need at all for Law 72C, as we can apply Law 12B. But only a few high-quality TDs do this. I spoke to a couple here in Australia and they would both adjust this using Law 12B1. However, North might have bid 3NT (I certainly would have done) if a penalty double were pulled to 2D. I would poll ten rabbits and ask them what they would call after P-(1NT)-X-(P)-2D-P and adjust that datum slightly in favour of East-West.

I don't understand the stance of those who require awareness. Law 12B uses "infraction" defined as:
Infraction: a player’s breach of Law or of Lawful regulation.

Law 72C uses "irregularity", defined as:
Irregularity: a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player.

So, if there is an irregularity such as a BIT, which is not an infraction per se, we do need awareness, so one would not adjust when declarer with AKJTx in dummy opposite xxxx in hand led low and LHO broke tempo because nobody would be aware that this would cause declarer to finesse as nobody plays the queen from Qxx here!

But we always adjust under 12B when an infraction gains, and SB will appeal to the national authority, WBFLC and CAS if he does not get this one.

BudH, on 2018-February-18, 12:22, said:

Not at all. Only the calls out of turn that damage the non-offending site would trigger an adjustment. And not under 72C but under 12B which does not require "awareness", just an "infraction".

If your line of reasoning in coming to an adjustment here is not based on Law 72C, then you are a far cry from what SB was so upset about. If the line is valid, of course, that doesn't matter, and it may be that it is, but all I've said in this thread is that 72C is the wrong approach to this situation.