[paulg]

Quote

LAW 23 - AWARENESS OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE

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*.

* as, for example, by partner's enforced pass.

The phrasing of this law annoys me.

The "could have been aware", as we've discussed in other threads, is open to interpretation. I am in the camp who thinks that it is always true. Every player is aware that any irregularity may damage the opposing side - he may not be able to foresee how it will, but he is always aware.

But others will say that you need to be able to foresee the possible damage before an adjustment is necessary.

For example, suppose I pass when it is my partner's turn to call. Presuming this is not accepted, then I will be forced to pass for the rest of the auction. I am the offender although, to be honest, if I didn't know whose turn it was to call then I'm not sure of what I can actually be judged to be aware of.

Following this my partner psyches, safe in the knowledge that I am forced to pass.

My camp, who understands that any irregularity may cause damage, is happy to adjust now. The first sentence of the law is true, so the second sentence can be used to adjust.

However, those not in my camp might struggle to justify their desire to adjust using this law. If you believe that a passer out of turn is basically not paying attention and hence aware of very little, then the first sentence in the law is not true and you cannot use the second sentence to adjust. The player that psyches is not committing an irregularity. However you can use Law 16 (and the UI laws) to adjust in this instance, and you could have done this whether someone is aware or not.

So I fear that the 'could have been aware' clause is there solely for directors to assess the likelihood that a particular player, say the Rueful Rabbit, Secretary Bird or Hideous Hog, is trying to cheat. I don't think this is helpful or fair.

I'd prefer to see the law changed to:

"The Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through an irregularity."

[chrism]

This is also open to problems of interpretation. For example, I have just made an insufficient bid that results in partner being barred for the rest of the auction, and in effect have one shot at guessing the final contract. At the point of guessing I am pretty clearly at a disadvantage. However, I make a lucky guess and arrive at a successful contract where the field is reaching an unsuccessful one. I could almost certainly only have arrived at this result as a consequence of the irregularity. Should the director adjust under the proposed new law?

If you think the answer to that question is "yes", suppose that the field contract should actually score better if declarer finds the perfect line, but in this field almost nobody does. However I would be expected to find the optimum line since the director knows me to be a near-perfect declarer (straying into the realms of hypothetical fantasy). Have I gained an advantage?

I am not greatly opposed to such a change in wording, but I am not persuaded that it will lead to fewer difficult or controversial rulings, or to more equitable ones.

[campboy]

I think you are missing the "could well damage". Basically, the purpose of this clause is that you do not adjust when the good score is a fluke, only when it is reasonably likely that the irregularity will turn out to be to offender's advantage, and that that "reasonably likely" is on the basis of information available to offender: if his hand suggests it might be a good idea to silence himself, and he gains an advantage by silencing himself, we adjust. So it is whether "the offender could have been aware" that matters, because we need to take into account what's in his hand. And it is "could have been aware" not "was aware" to stress that we can adjust even if we are confident that offender was not aware: he could have been aware that it was not his turn to call because that information was available to him.

So if a player silences himself and happens to gain an advantage I would not normally adjust under law 23, since although offender could have known that it could just possibly damage NOS, he normally couldn't have known that it could well damage them; it is just too unlikely. In the situation you give, though, where his partner psyches, I might well adjust under another law on the grounds that psyching is taking advantage of the UI that there is a weak hand opposite.

[pran]

paulg, on 2013-November-28, 07:58, said:

The phrasing of this law annoys me.

The "could have been aware", as we've discussed in other threads, is open to interpretation. I am in the camp who thinks that it is always true. Every player is aware that any irregularity may damage the opposing side - he may not be able to foresee how it will, but he is always aware.

But others will say that you need to be able to foresee the possible damage before an adjustment is necessary.

For example, suppose I pass when it is my partner's turn to call. Presuming this is not accepted, then I will be forced to pass for the rest of the auction. I am the offender although, to be honest, if I didn't know whose turn it was to call then I'm not sure of what I can actually be judged to be aware of.

Following this my partner psyches, safe in the knowledge that I am forced to pass.

My camp, who understands that any irregularity may cause damage, is happy to adjust now. The first sentence of the law is true, so the second sentence can be used to adjust.

However, those not in my camp might struggle to justify their desire to adjust using this law. If you believe that a passer out of turn is basically not paying attention and hence aware of very little, then the first sentence in the law is not true and you cannot use the second sentence to adjust. The player that psyches is not committing an irregularity. However you can use Law 16 (and the UI laws) to adjust in this instance, and you could have done this whether someone is aware or not.

So I fear that the 'could have been aware' clause is there solely for directors to assess the likelihood that a particular player, say the Rueful Rabbit, Secretary Bird or Hideous Hog, is trying to cheat. I don't think this is helpful or fair.

I'd prefer to see the law changed to:

"The Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage [size="2"]through an irregularity."

The problem with this is that it requires the director to show such damage (more or less Beyond doubt).

A better wording could be: "The Director awards an adjusted score if in his opinion the offending side may have gained an advantage through an irregularity."