[Vampyr]

Of course hoping for improvements in the Laws is an exercise in futility, but it would probably be a great improvement if L23 read that it was "a player in his position" who could have known, rather than the player himself. This would help directors who worry that L23 casts suspicion on the player in question, when the law is in fact designed to avoid that. If we remove the actual player from the equation, it becomes more obvious to the reader that what this actual player knew or didn't know is totally irrelevant.

[barmar]

The word "could" already means that it's hypothetical knowledge, not something the actual player knows or doesn't know.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2014-December-03, 01:40, said:

The word "could" already means that it's hypothetical knowledge, not something the actual player knows or doesn't know.

Yes but as evidenced by the other thread, some people understand it as applying to the actual player.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2014-December-03, 11:42, said:

Yes but as evidenced by the other thread, some people understand it as applying to the actual player.

Usually bridge is played by actual players, not by hypothetical players. The player's knowledge may be hypothetical, but the player is not. So it always applies to the actual player (with the exception of Lamford's posts).

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2014-December-03, 15:17, said:

Usually bridge is played by actual players, not by hypothetical players. The player's knowledge may be hypothetical, but the player is not. So it always applies to the actual player (with the exception of Lamford's posts).

But positing a hypothetical player would make the law easier to understand and apply. The actual player, in cases like the one opinion the other thread, is a distraction.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2014-December-03, 17:14, said:

But positing a hypothetical player would make the law easier to understand and apply. The actual player, in cases like the one opinion the other thread, is a distraction.

As a TD, you have to deal with real people and you have to apply the laws to them. If one views them as "a distraction" one has lost all perpective of why we play bridge and what the TD's role is.

Rik

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2014-December-03, 15:17, said:

Usually bridge is played by actual players, not by hypothetical players. The player's knowledge may be hypothetical, but the player is not. So it always applies to the actual player (with the exception of Lamford's posts).

Rik

But the law doesn't say "was are of", it says "could well have been aware of". To me, that means we posit a number of people of ability comparable to the actual player, and try to estimate whether a significant number of them would have been aware of it. If several of his peers would have, then he could well have as well.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2014-December-04, 02:01, said:

But the law doesn't say "was are of", it says "could well have been aware of". To me, that means we posit a number of people of ability comparable to the actual player, and try to estimate whether a significant number of them would have been aware of it. If several of his peers would have, then he could well have as well.

The Law says:

Quote

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware...

(emphasis mine).

The question is, therefore, whether the actual player could have been aware. If that actual player is aunt Millie, who has never been aware of anything and never will be, then the offender could not have been aware, no matter how perfect the opportunity for a cheat would be.

Note also, that the law asks for the TD's opinion. He has to make a judgement of the player's ability to be aware. Saying that this player "could be aware" because many players "would be aware" is not answering the question that Law 23 poses to the TD. It is a form of generalisation that would be scary if it would be applied in other areas.

So, in order for Law 23 to apply, two conditions must be met:
The situation lends itself for exploitation by a cheat (John Probst)
The offender could have been aware of that... in the opinion of the Director

And, yes, that means explicitly that judging people (the actual player) is part of a TD's job. TDs cannot renage on that.

Rik

[campboy]

The problem with the current version IMO is that it is not as clear as it might be that it is capability, not possibility, that is relevant. "The player could have known" might be read by some as "the TD thinks there is a chance the player did know", whereas in fact what is intended is (I believe) "the player had enough information and understanding to reach that conclusion, even if he didn't actually do so".

I think it would be a better law if it were determined in terms of a hypothetical player. Certainly I would be pretty insulted if a TD declined to adjust the score on the grounds that "I don't think you could have known".

[blackshoe]

So you would rather take a hit on your score than one on your ego?

I don't think a TD would put it that way, unless pressed.

[axman]

campboy, on 2014-December-04, 03:58, said:

The problem with the current version IMO is that it is not as clear as it might be that it is capability, not possibility, that is relevant. "The player could have known" might be read by some as "the TD thinks there is a chance the player did know", whereas in fact what is intended is (I believe) "the player had enough information and understanding to reach that conclusion, even if he didn't actually do so".

I think it would be a better law if it were determined in terms of a hypothetical player. Certainly I would be pretty insulted if a TD declined to adjust the score on the grounds that "I don't think you could have known".

When reading L23 I get the impression that its function is to remedy the damage that the rest of the law does to the players. Or, said differently, if the remedies that the law provides are the right ones then L23 would not be needed.

[gnasher]

I don't see why the Laws even consider the question of awareness. If you break the rules and you gain by doing so, equity should be restored.

I also don't see why it refers to irregularities rather than infractions. If there has been no infraction, there is no offender, so the law would not apply.

Here's my version of Law 23:

Whenever an offending side has gained an advantage from its infraction, the Director awards an adjusted score.

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on 2014-December-03, 20:35, said:

As a TD, you have to deal with real people and you have to apply the laws to them. If one views them as "a distraction" one has lost all perspective of why we play bridge and what the TD's role is.

Reminds me of a doctor who once during a financial committee meeting noted that the hospital would become much more efficient if we got rid of all the patients.

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2014-December-04, 14:54, said:

I don't see why the Laws even consider the question of awareness. If you break the rules and you gain by doing so, equity should be restored.

I also don't see why it refers to irregularities rather than infractions. If there has been no infraction, there is no offender, so the law would not apply.

Here's my version of Law 23:

Whenever an offending side has gained an advantage from its infraction, the Director awards an adjusted score.

Are people not allowed to be lucky anymore after an infraction?

Check the following example:

---

After the 1NT opening by North, South "opens" 1NT. He hasn't seen his partner's bid. The TD comes and establishes that 2NT is natural, so South is allowed to change his call to 2NT without barring North. So, South corrects to 2NT. North looks at his hand, concludes that he has a minimum 1NT opening and rejects the game invitation. That leads to a top score since, naturally, the whole field is in 3NT-1.

Personnally, I don't think the offending side has gained from its infraction. They have failed to bid a sensible game that would have made on the vast majority of the layouts. The fact that they hit the jackpot was caused by the layout of the EW cards.

Rik

[Vampyr]

axman, on 2014-December-04, 14:44, said:

When reading L23 I get the impression that its function is to remedy the damage that the rest of the law does to the players. Or, said differently, if the remedies that the law provides are the right ones then L23 would not be needed.

No, because L23 avoids us having to accuse players of cheating. Which is good, because mostly they aren't.

gnasher, on 2014-December-04, 14:54, said:

I don't see why the Laws even consider the question of awareness. If you break the rules and you gain by doing so, equity should be restored.

I also don't see why it refers to irregularities rather than infractions. If there has been no infraction, there is no offender, so the law would not apply.

Here's my version of Law 23:

Whenever an offending side has gained an advantage from its infraction, the Director awards an adjusted score.

I disagree. With most infractions, it is hard to see how the OS could gain. With others (like the case where you suddenly get a natural 2♦ overcall over a 1♦ opening,) it is a lot easier. L23 definitely should be considered when the OS gain something they didn't have before.

So it's a matter of how difficult the gain was to foresee.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2014-December-04, 14:54, said:

I don't see why the Laws even consider the question of awareness. If you break the rules and you gain by doing so, equity should be restored.

I also don't see why it refers to irregularities rather than infractions. If there has been no infraction, there is no offender, so the law would not apply.

Here's my version of Law 23:

Whenever an offending side has gained an advantage from its infraction, the Director awards an adjusted score.

The wording of Law 9C implies that a player who commits an irregularity is an offender.

Your law 23 would allow us to get rid of maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of the law book. I don't know, maybe that's a good thing.

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2014-December-04, 15:52, said:

Check the following example:
...
Personnally, I don't think the offending side has gained from its infraction.

In that case a law that begins "Whenever an offending side has gained an advantage from its infraction" wouldn't apply.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-05, 00:03, said:

Your law 23 would allow us to get rid of maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of the law book. I don't know, maybe that's a good thing.

That would work for me.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-05, 00:03, said:

The wording of Law 9C implies that a player who commits an irregularity is an offender.

Your law 23 would allow us to get rid of maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of the law book. I don't know, maybe that's a good thing.

It would be better than the current situation, where often the worst that happens to an offender is that he breaks even.