[lamford]

---

The above auction at a North London Club on Tuesday featured South, our friend the Secretary Bird, who was playing Precision with one of the club's better members. He reached 4♠ by South, and East, the club's rabbit, led the queen of clubs out of turn, as his partner had asked about the alert of 1♣. The TD was called and read out the relevant Law, and SB decided to insist on a club lead by West. The TD advised West that the fact that his partner had the queen of clubs was UI, and West elected to lead a small club, as he thought this would be safer. Sadly for SB, this was a dagger to the heart of the contract and SB won with the king and led the king of spades, but East won and played a second club and a third club from West promoted a second trump trick and beat the contract for a complete top.

SB was not happy. "You could have been aware from your trump holding that a club lead could lead to a trump promotion or an uppercut", his tirade against RR began, "and you could have been aware that this might well damage the non-offending side." "The TD should therefore award an adjusted score under Law 23. I am fully aware that I could have made the contract by barring a club lead, but you could have been aware that I would not do that." He paused for breath and resumed his assault: "And I think you knew that it was not your lead, and you committed an infraction for which you were prepared to pay the penalty, a breach of Law 72B1 which states ..."

The TD interrupted SB and stated that his initial opinion was that this was probably just "rub of the green", and that West had certainly not used the UI that his partner had the queen of clubs, and nor could East, RR, be aware of anything connected with bridge. How do you rule?

[pran]

"Result stands", and a warning to SB to observe Law 74.
(More severe that just a warning if SB already has a history of Law 74 infringements.)

[gwnn]

How many "could have"s can you stack together before it is no longer a could have?

[barmar]

Haven't we determined in the past that RR is so clueless that he couldn't possibly be aware of any of these things? He's just incredibly lucky that his carelessness succeeds without him needing to understand why.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2016-May-21, 20:43, said:

Haven't we determined in the past that RR is so clueless that he couldn't possibly be aware of any of these things? He's just incredibly lucky that his carelessness succeeds without him needing to understand why.

Do you think "could have been aware" takes into account the "class of player"? This phrase is in the claim laws, and in the UI laws, but not in Law 23. Why? Perhaps because the lawmakers did not want us to consider the class of player when ruling that someone could have cheated been aware.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2016-May-22, 05:21, said:

Do you think "could have been aware" takes into account the "class of player"? This phrase is in the claim laws, and in the UI laws, but not in Law 23. Why? Perhaps because the lawmakers did not want us to consider the class of player when ruling that someone could have cheated been aware.

It's in the UI laws because we define LAs in terms of a hypothetical player, not the actual player.

It's not perfectly whether the reference to "an offender" in Law 23 refers to the actual offender, or offenders in general. But the way the rest of the sentence is constructed (the more specific references to "his irregularity", "this", and "the non-offending side") makes me think it means the actual offender (it would have been unambiguous if they'd written "the offender").

So we're not supposed to take account of the class of player, but the ability of the specific player themselves.

[ggwhiz]

 lamford, on 2016-May-21, 16:29, said:

East, the club's rabbit, led the queen of clubs out of turn, as his partner had asked about the alert of 1♣.

The rabbit goes to jail for blatant use of the UI of his partners inquiry and out of turn yet.

The low club lead by west played him for having taken that advantage instead of owning a stiff club lead on (questionable) merit is just as bad and it doesn't matter who they are.

[lamford]

 ggwhiz, on 2016-May-22, 15:11, said:

The rabbit goes to jail for blatant use of the UI of his partners inquiry and out of turn lead.

The low club lead by west played him for having taken that advantage instead of owning a stiff club lead on (questionable) merit is just as bad and it doesn't matter who they are.

I also think that RR could have known that the infraction would work to his advantage. He did not know how, as he (probably) thought he was on lead. But he did think that leading the QC would gain, and he could have known that it was an infraction. Even RR can know who the declarer is from the auction.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2016-May-22, 14:36, said:

It's in the UI laws because we define LAs in terms of a hypothetical player, not the actual player.

It's not perfectly whether the reference to "an offender" in Law 23 refers to the actual offender, or offenders in general. But the way the rest of the sentence is constructed (the more specific references to "his irregularity", "this", and "the non-offending side") makes me think it means the actual offender (it would have been unambiguous if they'd written "the offender").

So we're not supposed to take account of the class of player, but the ability of the specific player themselves.

In my view, once it starts with "an offender" it means offenders generally. Otherwise it would say "the offender". It says "his irregularity" as "his" is interchangeable with "her" and something has to be used to make sense. "The non-offending side" does refer to the two non-offenders at the table. If some other non-offenders could have been damaged but these two could not have been, then the TD does not adjust.