[lamford]

barmar, on 2015-September-20, 23:00, said:

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?

Not according to a US director, who thinks that partner should assume we have one third of the remaining points which are not in his hand (that is all he can glean from the AI). Partner will also have one third of the remaining points on average. When partner guesses the final contract, his correct game theory approach is to only bid 3NT with 18 points as he then thinks that you have 7.33, and, given the risk of being doubled, maybe he should have a tad more.

Partner's average is 13.33. On these hands he should now pass, as there is unlikely to be a game on, and he has no idea what you have. Your enforced silence stops him getting into trouble on these hands, particularly if he is in his NT range. The same arguments apply with all hands in the 0-6 range. You want to force partner to guess to pass, which he will do with the AI. Therefore you pass out of turn. Were it not for 72B1, it would be a good gambit to pass out of turn on 0-6. Worse still, failure to pass out of turn would suggest 7-11.

With 7-11 it is bonkers to pass out of turn. Partner has to guess the final contract and we would have had a constructive auction, possibly to slam.

So, I would rule that a Probst cheat who could have done the analysis "could have been aware" when he has a very bad hand. But "could not have been aware" when he has "intermediate pass"!

[pran]

lamford, on 2015-September-21, 03:39, said:

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".

"normal question"?

Of course a TD should take into consideration (account) all circumstances that he finds relevant.

Do you for any moment think differently and why do you ask?

[lamford]

pran, on 2015-September-21, 06:29, said:

"normal question"?

Of course a TD should take into consideration (account) all circumstances that he finds relevant.

Do you for any moment think differently and why do you ask?

Because there appears to be a school of thought that "could have been aware" is independent of the player's ability, and there is a school of thought that "could have been aware" applies to the player in question only. There is a massive difference. On this hand, a North "could have been aware", but the Rueful Rabbit "could not have been aware".

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-September-21, 06:39, said:

Because there appears to be a school of thought that "could have been aware" is independent of the player's ability, and there is a school of thought that "could have been aware" applies to the player in question only. There is a massive difference. On this hand, a North "could have been aware", but the Rueful Rabbit "could not have been aware".

Pran already answered that the TD is supposed to take all circumstances into account. And, of course, who committed the infraction is one of the relevant circumstances.

If the player is a clueless R.R. then he could not have been aware, since R.R. is never aware of anything. If the player is H.H. then he must have been aware, since H.H. doesn't make mistakes and does everything for a reason.

Rik

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-September-21, 03:45, said:

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.

And "conventional" also means what it means in English?

TDs have been working for years with the meaning of "could" (when referring to what goes on in a player's brain) as "something you think is reasonably likely, but that you can't prove". Why? Because jargon is not the same as plain English.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2015-September-21, 08:04, said:

And "conventional" also means what it means in English?

According to my dictionaries synonyms for "convention" are "formal agreement" or "accepted custom" and "conventional" is the corresponding adjective.

IMHO this is a very precise interpretation of the words "convention" and "conventional".

I believe there is a very good reason why the laws do not use these words as contrasts to "natural" but instead use the word "artificial".

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-September-21, 08:04, said:

And "conventional" also means what it means in English?

"Conventional" does not appear in the Laws; "Artificial" does (37 times including the index) and that is defined in the definitions at the beginning. [Under that definition, the 3NT opener in this example was artificial, and it did require an alert as per the Blue Book, as East might have doubled, and North would then have had an opportunity to bid, so he could not conclude that South was selecting the final contract. Perhaps EW should record the psyche of 3NT, fielded by North who passed it! - (a joke - for sanst's benefit)] It also appears that there was TD error in not offering East an opportunity to accept North's second pass out of turn (even though forced). Law 29A does not make an exception for a pass when obliged to pass. East might double and West could not be deprived of his call, so there would then be three more calls, and North would now become unsilenced. North, being a rabbit, might now bid 4C, as he does not want to play in 3NT opposite a "gambling" 3NT. East would double and I think that is -1400 as declarer can only make the major-suit aces and kings.

Law 23 does indeed say "in the opinion of the Director". Clearly Trinidad and pran would both rule differently depending on who committed the infraction. Is that the view of other TDs, and is there any case law on this? And, where a word or phrase is not in the definitions, it should take its normal English meaning (in an bridge context of course).

This post has been edited by lamford: 2015-September-21, 17:25

[sanst]

lamford, on 2015-September-21, 08:42, said:

Under that definition, the 3NT opener in this example was artificial, and it did require an alert as per the Blue Book, as East might have doubled, and North would then have had an opportunity to bid, so he could not conclude that South was selecting the final contract. Perhaps EW should record the psyche of 3NT, fielded by North who passed it! .

From the definitions: "Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named". Since there is certainly the possibility that S will become the declarer in 3NT(x), he has shown the willingness to play in the denomination named. By this definition it's no artificial call and hence not alertable. That it's a fielded psyche, fielded by a player who has to pass, is utter nonsense.

[Coelacanth]

lamford, on 2015-September-19, 10:59, said:

I am pleased that you were not entirely serious about any penalty for a mythical character, and I think that those who are wasting time on assessing penalties on him all the time are achieving nothing. They should take up role-play games instead of bridge. I do not think SB's behaviour should deny him redress.

It is not for me to decide whether "normal play" is important under the current laws. The Lawmakers have done that for me and decided it is:
12A2. The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board.

On this hand no rectification permits normal play of the board, but it might have done. If South did not have an opening bid, the board would have proceeded normally, and the director should judge that the rectification permits normal play. If South had opened 1NT and West overcalled 3D, that would have led to normal play. When South opens 3NT, it is no longer possible for there to be normal play.

Do you consider it right to ignore 12A2?

In looking through the Laws, I can find no definition of what constitutes "normal" play. Yes, 12A2 sets forth a course of action when "normal" play is impossible, but it does not define what "normal" is.

Here, we have an irregularity, and a rectification has been applied in accordance with L29 and L30. It seems to me that this is entirely "normal"; it's the expected resolution of an auction which begins with an opening pass OOT.

Suppose that, instead of passing, RR had opened 7NT OOT, quickly accepted and doubled by E. Clearly this is not a "normal" result, but would you assign an artificial 12A2 score in place of the score for 7NTX down however many tricks it went down?

We now return to our regularly scheduled L23 discussion.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2015-September-21, 08:42, said:

Clearly Trinidad and pran would both rule differently depending on who committed the infraction. Is that the view of other TDs, and is there any case law on this?

That is certainly my view. I don't know of any case law, but I can't see any other reasonable way of interpreting that law. If "an offender" does not refer to the person who committed the irregularity, to whom else might it refer? I think if there were a general standard of awareness that should be applied in all cases, regardless of who the offender is, I would have heard about it.

[barmar]

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

Honestly I do not understand the purpose of this question.
Are you insinuating something?

I think the point is that there's a difference between what a novice and an experienced player "could have been aware" of -- a novice is less likely to be aware of how his actions would be interpreted by the opponents. When the Law refers to that, are they talking about players in general, or the class of players like the offender.

[pran]

barmar, on 2015-September-21, 14:35, said:

I think the point is that there's a difference between what a novice and an experienced player "could have been aware" of -- a novice is less likely to be aware of how his actions would be interpreted by the opponents. When the Law refers to that, are they talking about players in general, or the class of players like the offender.

There sure is - have I anywhere indicated otherwise?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-September-21, 03:37, said:

It seems to me that the bridge laws are primarily for non-beginners

I don't know where you get that idea. Nothing in the laws suggests to me that they're not for everybody.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-September-21, 08:42, said:

"Conventional" does not appear in the Laws

Where did I say that "conventional" needed to be in the laws? I gave examples like "organic" and "mineral". They don't appear in the laws. And in our own field of bridge "conventional" means almost the opposite of what it means in English: In bridge it means: "something special, only after a special agreement, and implicitly deviating from the older default (natural)" whereas in English it means: "the normal, old-fashioned way".

And you just need to browse through the water cooler to find examples about misunderstandings about the meaning of the word "theory" in science (when non-scientists think that "theory" in science means what it means in English).

In jargon, words often have a meaning that differs from standard language.

In bridge laws jargon the construction "could do" (when it refers to a player's thoughts, intents or other things that were going on in the player's mind) it means "we have reasons to believe you did, but we can't prove it and the laws are not going to require us to prove it". It is a very convenient construction: It means that most likely justice can be done, without the need for the TD to accuse anybody of anything and without the need to prove something that can't be proven.

This construction serves as a lubricant for TD-ing. But that also means that TDs should use this "could do" power with care: only when they suspect that the player in fact "did".

Rik

[blackshoe]

"convention" means "agreement as to meaning".

As for "could do", what is the basis for your interpretation?

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2015-September-21, 11:56, said:

That is certainly my view. I don't know of any case law, but I can't see any other reasonable way of interpreting that law. If "an offender" does not refer to the person who committed the irregularity, to whom else might it refer? I think if there were a general standard of awareness that should be applied in all cases, regardless of who the offender is, I would have heard about it.

Clearly the offender refers to North. It seems that the "class" of offender is taken into account in deciding whether he could have been aware. If that is the majority view, then I agree that RR could not have been aware, but a strong player passing out of turn with a weak hand should be treated differently. I have never seen a Law 23 adjustment for a pass out of turn, but maybe they will be given greater scrutiny from now on.

On this hand, I think it is clear that there was director error in not allowing East to accept North's second pass out of turn. Does anybody disagree with that and should one therefore award an artificial adjusted score?

[lamford]

sanst, on 2015-September-21, 11:39, said:

Since there is certainly the possibility that S will become the declarer in 3NT(x), he has shown the willingness to play in the denomination named. By this definition it's no artificial call and hence not alertable.

In addition to willingness to play in the denomination named, it also conveyed "other information" by agreement, of a solid minor with nothing outside. There was no NS agreement to modify the 3NT opening consequent to North's pass out of turn, so it was artificial and required an alert. If North had been required to pass throughout, then I might agree with you.

[lamford]

Coelacanth, on 2015-September-21, 11:49, said:

Suppose that, instead of passing, RR had opened 7NT OOT, quickly accepted and doubled by E. Clearly this is not a "normal" result, but would you assign an artificial 12A2 score in place of the score for 7NTX down however many tricks it went down?

Perhaps "normal" play should just require a legal auction (including unlimited withdrawn or accepted IBs or COOTs) using a complete correct deck, followed by 13 tricks of 4 cards each (or a claim earlier than that) with up to 26 MPCs. It should be defined in the Laws, of course.