[nige1]

awm, on 2011-April-11, 14:41, said:

While weird cases like the one in this thread are rare, I think the following sequence of events is actually very common:

(1) Player has UI, "ethically" avoids action suggested by the UI and does something else.
(2) All his peers would take the action suggested by the UI; i.e. there is no LA. Director would never adjust.
(3) Player gets a lousy result because he was "ethical"; his normal action would get a better result.

So we are routinely saddling the "ethical" players with lousy results that they would not have gotten had they been "less ethical" and just ignored the UI. This has already happened to me multiple times and surely happens much more often to full-time players (at least the ethical ones). Each time a player realizes that this has happened to him he is more and more tempted to be "unethical" the next time around and take his chances with the director. I don't think this is really better for the game than my alternative (which does create somewhat more rulings/adjustments, as Bluejack says).

IMO, Cascade is right. I also agree with Awm that a major problem is that many players rationalize using UI through ignorance or carelessness: They convince themselves "I took the action that I was going to take anyway. I leave the judgement about suggested LAs to the director." They often get away with this because

• Sometimes, opponents do not notice or can't be bothered calling the director.
• Sometimes there is no damage, so no reason to call the director
• Often the director cannot determine what logical alternative was suggested by the UI (although that is almost always obvious to UI-recipients in experienced partnerships)
• If, in spite of all this, the director's rules against the law-breakers, the "equity law" result is usually no worse than they would have achieved by complying with the law.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-13, 12:22, said:

I do not see how 73D1 can apply here.

Quote

73D. Variations in Tempo or Manner
1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady
tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly
careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise...

The player has not maintained steady tempo. This is a situation where it could be known that this might work to his benefit. He has not been particularly careful in that situation, and his side has gained from it.

There is no specific remedy given in this law, so we turn to L12A1 instead.

[blackshoe]

Other than the fact that anyone who has played bridge for more than a week "could know" that an irregularity could work to his benefit, how is this a "could have known" situation?

Maybe I'm being too easy, but this strikes me as an example of the old Kaplan idea, now deprecated, of deciding what you want to do, and then finding a law to support it.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-14, 06:02, said:

Other than the fact that anyone who has played bridge for more than a week "could know" that an irregularity could work to his benefit, how is this a "could have known" situation?

Let's think about this from the point of view of a Probst Cheat*:

What would an ethically-challenged player do if he was afraid that his partner might pull his penalty double and wanted to stop him from doing so? Making a slow double seems the standout action.


* This is the concept used by the London TD John Probst (now happily improving and playing bridge again, after a stroke a couple of years ago) to consider whether an adjustment should be given: if an innocent player takes the same action that would be deliberately taken by a cheat, then we adjust without in any way doubting the ethics of the innocent player.

[blackshoe]

Glad to hear John is doing better.

I understand the Probst cheat, but I don't see how it applies to "could have known". It does not seem to me to follow from "a cheat could have known" that "an ethical player could have known".

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-14, 07:55, said:

I understand the Probst cheat, but I don't see how it applies to "could have known". It does not seem to me to follow from "a cheat could have known" that "an ethical player could have known".

Really? Cheats have better powers of analysis than ethical players?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-14, 07:55, said:

It does not seem to me to follow from "a cheat could have known" that "an ethical player could have known".

What follows is that when we determine a player (ethical or not) could have known (73D1 2nd sentence), we have not called anyone a cheat, merely excercized the powers of 12A1.

We know North was trying to be a good citizen if he passed the double, although his previous bidding was woefully unprepared. We don't have to judge South's intent, only that he was not careful to avoid the 73D1 issue.

[mycroft]

Blackshoe, the idea of the Probst Cheat test is:

• If a Probst Cheat would know, and
  
• if it would be effective enough that a Probst Cheat would try it, then
  
• this is a position where a non-beginner, non-Probst Cheat "could have known", so
  
• if the player at the table did the same thing, then we have to rule under "could have known" (whether or not the player actually did know).

I tend to explain it to the player that "I'm sure you didn't do this with that purpose; I don't even believe that you knew that this would be a problem; but someone *trying to cheat* would do the same thing you did, and the Laws are written such that I have to rule against you. I don't have a choice; the Laws force me. I am *not* implying anything about what you did." I'll go on to explain *why* the Laws are written that way, after the game or some other time, if I'm asked, or if the player still believes that there's some implication, or if I think it will help them understand in general.

[aguahombre]

Mycroft, 2 things:

1--Since 12A1 allows adjustment at the discretion of the director, I don't think you should be telling them you are forced to do it.
2--I believe "Probst Cheat" refers to the other guy, not to the one who would have really had evil intent. A Probst Cheat is not really a cheat at all, just one who did the same thing a true cheat would have done --unfortunate label.

[blackshoe]

Agree with Aqua — any time a TD is using his judgment, he is not "forced" to any particular conclusion.

I think the "Probst Cheat test" is this: if a cheat would have done a certain thing (e.g., hesitate before playing a card) with the intent of cheating, then if a non-cheat does that thing, he should be ruled against. I don't know how, or even if, John would apply his test to "could have known". The only thing the test, as I understand it, says about "could have known" is that the cheat will have known, and that's only implicit in the assumption of "intent of cheating". I think it's incumbent on the TD who is going to rule a player "could have known" something that he demonstrate how the player could have known it. I don't believe that broad generalization (anyone could have known), or blanket assertion (obviously he could have known), or reference to someone else (the cheat could have known/did know) cuts the mustard. There has to be something specific that leads the player in question to have a reason to know whatever it is.

I do disagree with Aqua's "we have merely exercised the powers in Law 12A1". There has to be a legal route to 12A1. That law reads

Quote

Law 12A1: The director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

So there has to be a violation of law (some law other than 12A1), and that law has to fail to provide indemnity for the offense. So if you start talking about 73D1, then go to 12A1, you're saying there has been a violation of 73D1. It isn't sufficient to assert "there has been an infraction". You have to show how there has been an infraction. 73D1 involves "could have known", so the TD has to demonstrate how the player could have known that (in the case at hand) hesitating might lead to problems. "Could have known" is not "did know", so the TD would not be saying "clearly, you thought of this at the time", but rather more "clearly, based on <whatever it's based on>, if this thought had occurred to you (as it will have occurred to a cheat) then you could have known..."

Actually, 73D1 doesn't saying anything in itself about "could have known". That's in

Quote

Law 73F: When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo or the like of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

This is the law that leads to Law 12 — we don't need 12A1 at all. This law has several parts: there must have been a violation of an earlier provision of Law 73 (73D1, in our case), there must have been damage to "an innocent opponent" (whatever that means ), an innocent player must have drawn a false inference, and the offender "could have known…" All of those parts have to be demonstrated.

I also think that given Law 73F, Law 12B2 precludes simply jumping from 73D1 to 12A1. 73F provides rectification for a violation of 73D1 (when the criteria of 73F are met). We apply that rectification, or none.

[nige1]

TFLB, 73F said:

When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo or the like of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

blackshoe, on 2011-April-14, 15:02, said:

Actually, 73D1 doesn't saying anything in itself about "could have known". That's in [73F]. This is the law that leads to Law 12 — we don't need 12A1 at all. This law has several parts: there must have been a violation of an earlier provision of Law 73 (73D1, in our case), there must have been damage to "an innocent opponent" (whatever that means ), an innocent player must have drawn a false inference, and the offender "could have known…" All of those parts have to be demonstrated. I also think that given Law 73F, Law 12B2 precludes simply jumping from 73D1 to 12A1. 73F provides rectification for a violation of 73D1 (when the criteria of 73F are met). We apply that rectification, or none.

Blackshoe has found another route through the law-book but is it applicable here? It was partner not an "innocent" opponent whose actions were affected

[blackshoe]

Good point, Nigel. Guess I should go back and read the entire thread before I post.

Maybe later.

[bluejak]

gordontd, on 2011-April-13, 10:16, said:

73D1 (second sentence), leading to 12A1?

That is exactly the advice I gave on the New Zealand website.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-14, 06:02, said:

Other than the fact that anyone who has played bridge for more than a week "could know" that an irregularity could work to his benefit, how is this a "could have known" situation?

Maybe I'm being too easy, but this strikes me as an example of the old Kaplan idea, now deprecated, of deciding what you want to do, and then finding a law to support it.

A player has a hand where he wants parter to pass his penalty double. Having been playing bridge for more than a week, and seeing players pulling slow doubles often being ruled against, it seems obvious that a slow pass will be more likely to be passed by an ethical partner. Therefore a player could have known that a slow pass would disadvantage opponents: he would have to have very little idea whatever of UI positions not to see this.

Mind you, I have no idea where could have known comes into it: Law 73D1 [second sentence] gives a requirement that players have to follow. In the cited case, it was not followed, therefore we apply rectification. Since there is no rectification given in any other Law, Law 12A1 applies.

blackshoe, on 2011-April-14, 15:02, said:

I also think that given Law 73F, Law 12B2 precludes simply jumping from 73D1 to 12A1. 73F provides rectification for a violation of 73D1 (when the criteria of 73F are met). We apply that rectification, or none.

I do not see how Law 73F applies. Where does the innocent opponent's actions come into it? It is partner who is affected.

[blackshoe]

This thread is already too long. I've lost track of what it's about. So I don't know where 73F comes into it. And I'm too tired to reread the whole thing. So I'm bowing out. Just disregard my previous posts.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-April-16, 16:24, said:

That is exactly the advice I gave on the New Zealand website.

Really?

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2011-April-16, 16:39, said:

Mind you, I have no idea where could have known comes into it: Law 73D1 [second sentence] gives a requirement that players have to follow. In the cited case, it was not followed, therefore we apply rectification. Since there is no rectification given in any other Law, Law 12A1 applies.

"Could have known" comes into it, because that is the expression used in Law 23:

Law 23 said:

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, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

That was an infraction of Laws 73A1 and 73B1 and also Law 73A2 (South's double was not made "without undue hesitation").

The player "could have been aware" that this irregularity could well damage the opposing side, so it is Law 23 which tells us to adjust.

Law 12A1 said:

1. The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

It seems to be that because the application of Law 23 has provided indemnnity to the non-offending side, Law 12A1 does not apply, technically speaking.

[nige1]

TFLB, L23 said:

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, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

jallerton, on 2011-April-17, 14:43, said:

"Could have known" comes into it, because that is the expression used in Law 23: That was an infraction of Laws 73A1 and 73B1 and also Law 73A2 (South's double was not made "without undue hesitation"). The player "could have been aware" that this irregularity could well damage the opposing side, so it is Law 23 which tells us to adjust. It seems to be that because the application of Law 23 has provided indemnnity to the non-offending side, Law 12A1 does not apply, technically speaking.

Directors lose their way unless guided by law-experts like jallerton and Poky. This demonstrates how inadequate the sign-posting is in the law-book. I hope that by 2018 or 2028, the laws are supplemented by official flow-charts, decision-tables, and expert-systems. This is a good idea even if, as I hope, the rules are also radically simplified and clarified.