[aguahombre]

gordontd, on 2014-November-28, 10:19, said:

Partner is not even a passed hand! Why should we not be making 4H or 3NT?

I don't believe all possible outcomes need to be examined in order to apply L23 ---just that the offender could have been aware that his action might well result in damage to the opponents. So, we look for the outcomes where it might come true. Here, it seems we still end up with the same minus 100.

Over there, with weighting we would end up with a difference.

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on 2014-November-28, 10:45, said:

I don't believe all possible outcomes need to be examined in order to apply L23 ---just that the offender could have been aware that his action might well result in damage to the opponents. So, we look for the outcomes where it might come true. Here, it seems we still end up with the same minus 100.

Over there, with weighting we would end up with a difference.

"Might well" suggests to me something rather over 50%. I don't think that's the case.

[blackshoe]

Paul's suggestion of how a player might think about the hand, leading to his conclusion that the player here "could have known" that 2♦ might damage his opponents, is the kind of construction I would expect from his Secretary Bird. Would a player, particularly one at this level, think that way at the table?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-28, 11:13, said:

Paul's suggestion of how a player might think about the hand, leading to his conclusion that the player here "could have known" that 2♦ might damage his opponents, is the kind of construction I would expect from his Secretary Bird. Would a player, particularly one at this level, think that way at the table?

L23 does not require that a player actually thought anything at all about the matter.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-28, 11:15, said:

L23 does not require that a player actually thought anything at all about the matter.

So the TD could say "he could have known, because if a fairy had come along and given him the power to see all four hands, he would have known"? We don't need a fairy to come along, after all.

As you might guess I do not like Law 23 at all.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2014-November-28, 10:54, said:

"Might well" suggests to me something rather over 50%. I don't think that's the case.

I think that we have discussed the meaning of "might well" on here before, and the consensus was that a much lower percentage was needed. If you wrote "if you smoke, you might well get cancer", that does not imply a probability of anywhere near 50%, merely that there is a significant chance of it happening.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2014-November-28, 10:19, said:

Partner is not even a passed hand! Why should we not be making 4H or 3NT?

South is not a passed hand either. North has 12-19 with 3+ diamonds say, and we have 12. We might well be making 4H or 3NT, but I would put the chance at under 10%, so I don't think it meets with your definition of "might well". Plugging my hand into bridge dealer, we will make 3NT less than 4% of the time, as the diamonds rarely come in. I thought East's gambit of bidding 1D then 2D was an excellent shot. It would probably have been even better over a Precision 1D.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-November-28, 12:04, said:

I thought East's gambit of bidding 1D then 2D was an excellent shot. It would probably have been even better over a Precision 1D.

Players "know" that they can correct an insufficient 1♦ to 2♦ without further penalty. What are the odds that this player was just acting on what he "knows" rather than conspiring to use an IB to get to a good spot? I would say pretty damn good.

Precision opens another can of worms, at least in the ACBL, where the Precision 1♦ opening is not natural.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-28, 13:56, said:

What are the odds that this player was just acting on what he "knows" rather than conspiring to use an IB to get to a good spot? I would say pretty damn good.

Very likely, I agree. However, Law 23 does not say "could well have been aware". It just says "could have been aware", which is some small probability greater than zero.

[blackshoe]

"In determining the facts, the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect."

Seems to me the weight of "very likely" is considerably greater than the weight of "some small probability greater than zero". Granted the first quote is from Law 85, which is about what the TD does when the facts are not agreed by the players at the table, and that law probably does not apply here. Still, the principle expressed seems valid, especially considering that the thrust of the laws as a whole is, we are told, to restore equity. Does applying Law 23 in this case do that?

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-28, 16:01, said:

"In determining the facts, the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect."

Seems to me the weight of "very likely" is considerably greater than the weight of "some small probability greater than zero". Granted the first quote is from Law 85, which is about what the TD does when the facts are not agreed by the players at the table, and that law probably does not apply here. Still, the principle expressed seems valid, especially considering that the thrust of the laws as a whole is, we are told, to restore equity. Does applying Law 23 in this case do that?

If you go down that route, the TD should be assessing whether on the balance of probabilities East could have been aware, NOT whether on the balance of probabilities East was aware.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2014-November-28, 12:04, said:

I don't think it meets with your definition of "might well".

Nor need it, since I didn't say that we "might well" have game.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2014-November-29, 03:01, said:

If you go down that route, the TD should be assessing whether on the balance of probabilities East could have been aware, NOT whether on the balance of probabilities East was aware.

I can see an argument that, logically, the probability that a player could have been aware of just about anything is exactly 1.

Let me ask this: how do you assess what a player "could have been aware" of? More to the point, I suppose, is how do you assess whether a player "could have been aware" that his action 1) was an irregularity and 2) that it "could well damage" the OS? What criteria? What thought process?

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-28, 11:15, said:

L23 does not require that a player actually thought anything at all about the matter.

No, it doesn't.

But it requires that the TD considers it a realistic possibility that this actual player on this actual hand was aware that...

Do we think that there are players who, when the right hand comes along, would be aware that an infraction might work to their advantage? Yes, we do. Do we think it is realistically probable that this actual player, on this particular hand, was aware that an infraction might work to his advantage? No way.

Law 23 is meant to stop sharp practice, not to hit on players who weren't paying attention.

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2014-November-29, 12:58, said:

Do we think it is realistically probable that this actual player, on this particular hand, was aware that an infraction might work to his advantage? No way.

As jallerton points out that is not the test. If it were, Law 23 would say "was possibly aware". Instead it says "could have been aware". So, even if we think there was zero chance that he was aware, we adjust if we think there is a small chance that he could have been aware.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-November-29, 14:04, said:

As jallerton points out that is not the test. If it were, Law 23 would say "was possibly aware". Instead it says "could have been aware". So, even if we think there was zero chance that he was aware, we adjust if we think there is a small chance that he could have been aware.

This argument makes no sense to me. We know something didn't happen, but we're going to rule on the basis that it might have happened? In some other universe, perhaps? Mind-boggling.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2014-November-29, 12:58, said:

Law 23 is meant to stop sharp practice, not to hit on players who weren't paying attention.

The sharp practice cannot be prevented unless the players not paying attention are subject to the same penalty.

L23 enables us to avoid suggesting that someone is a cheat -- and from figuring out whether this is the case,

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-29, 14:27, said:

We know something didn't happen, but we're going to rule on the basis that it might have happened?

Basically yes, but "might have happened" seems to show where you are stuck. The distinction is perhaps subtle, but the fact is that we are not considering the probability that it actually happened.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-29, 17:47, said:

Basically yes, but "might have happened" seems to show where you are stuck. The distinction is perhaps subtle, but the fact is that we are not considering the probability that it actually happened.

Let me repeat something I asked upthread:

blackshoe, on 2014-November-29, 09:43, said:

Let me ask this: how do you assess what a player "could have been aware" of? More to the point, I suppose, is how do you assess whether a player "could have been aware" that his action 1) was an irregularity and 2) that it "could well damage" the OS? What criteria? What thought process?

When I first got interested in the laws, I had a hard time getting my head around Law 16. I think I understand that one now, but law 23 still evades me. I guess I need help.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2014-November-29, 14:04, said:

As jallerton points out that is not the test. If it were, Law 23 would say "was possibly aware". Instead it says "could have been aware". So, even if we think there was zero chance that he was aware, we adjust if we think there is a small chance that he could have been aware.

If your interpretation would be correct, Law 23 would simply be: "If a contestant benefits from his own infraction, the TD shall award an AS".

The word "could" implies "suspicion". If I call the tax office and tell them that you could have been cheating on your tax form, I get in trouble (and rightly so). I cannot say that I meant "Cheating occurs. It is therefore not impossible (P>0) that Lamford cheated on his tax form."... Because that is not what "could" means.

Rik