[blackshoe]

 axman, on 2016-January-05, 10:58, said:

Note that 12B1 merely states when damage exists; but, does not define what it is.

That's too pedantic even for me.

[blackshoe]

Oh, I know it doesn't require actual intent. That wasn't my point at all. I just don't think Pran's hypothetical is a good example for what it's trying to show.

Most people rarely, if ever, think about the consequences of their irregularities. In many cases they're not thinking at all.

[gordontd]

 axman, on 2016-January-05, 10:58, said:

Note that 12B1 merely states when damage exists; but, does not define what it is.

It seems to me a pretty good way of defining some things- to state when they exist.

[campboy]

 szgyula, on 2016-January-05, 07:20, said:

12A1 explicitly empowers the TD to adjust the score in this case. The forced pass does not provide indemnity, thus, the TD can adjust. I do not think 12B2 applies as the forced pass is not a rectification, in my opinion.

Your opinion is wrong, then. You can find the definition of "rectification" in the front of the lawbook.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2016-January-05, 15:30, said:

Oh, I know it doesn't require actual intent. That wasn't my point at all. I just don't think Pran's hypothetical is a good example for what it's trying to show.

Most people rarely, if ever, think about the consequences of their irregularities. In many cases they're not thinking at all.

Today's Law 23 is a generalization of the original Law 23 (1987) which read:

A: Damaging Enforced Pass
When the penalty for an irregularity under any Law would compel the offender's partner to pass at his next turn, and when the Director deems that the offender, at the time of his irregularity, could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the non-offending side was damaged by the enforced pass.
B: Damaging Pass at Partner's Turn
When a player passes out of rotation at partner's turn to call, [...]

(The rest of sub-para B is essentially the same as the corresponding part of sub-para A)

As I have implied in my earlier post, and as several posters have already expressed: This law does not deal with intent, it deals with the possibility that an offender, when committing an irregularity, could have known that the normal rectification for this irregularity might be advantageous to his side. Thus, rulings under Law 23 are a matter of judgement by the Director, not a matter of established intent.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2016-January-06, 06:05, said:

Thus, rulings under Law 23 are a matter of judgement by the Director, not a matter of established intent.

But we still need to come to a general agreement on what is meant by "could have known".

Could the government have known that hurricanes Katrina and Sandy would cause as much devastation as they did? Could Japan have known about Fukushima?

[mycroft]

...at the time that they did what?...

That clause, to me, is the critical one.

It's not "could the player have known", full stop; of course they *could*. Could they have known on this hand, with these cards and opponents (L, R, and C) *when they did* whatever they did, that it was likely to work out better than doing any legal thing ("could well damage the NOS")?

So, if I hand the board to my DIC-that-works-the-BB, and say "for this hand, you're a slimeball. At this point [just before the infraction], can you think of a better line of action than <the infraction>?" and they say "nah, that's the most likely way to get a good score", then it's Law 23 time.

Barry, as usual, I think we are violently agreeing.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2016-January-06, 10:53, said:

But we still need to come to a general agreement on what is meant by "could have known".

Could the government have known that hurricanes Katrina and Sandy would cause as much devastation as they did? Could Japan have known about Fukushima?

Disregarding the red herrings:

Consider a competitive auction where one side has "fought" it's way up to 4♠ (last bid by North) and the other side has fought along up to 4♥. East now in turn to call judges that a sacrifice in 5♥ will probably be too expensive even non-vul against vul. How shall he avoid West doubling the 4♠ contract or sacrificing in 5♥?

If East now bids 4♥ and replaces this IB with a PASS then most (if not all) competent Directors will rule that he "could have known" at the time he committed this ingenious irregularity to prevent a probably unfortunate contract is likely to cause damage to opponents.

[szgyula]

I just wanted to say that bringing in "intentional" was wrong. I had the translation in mind, not the original. The title got translated into the equivalent of "intentionally/knowingly causing possible damage". I also had a TD and Appeals ruling in mind when this law was used to rule in a simple MI case, claiming that the OS was intentionally giving wrong information to intentionally damage the NOS by misleading them.

Sorry about that...