[jallerton]

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

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, on 2014-November-29, 19:10, said:

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".

I think we should apply the Probst cheat test: might a cheat trying to take advantage of the Laws act this way?. We don't adjust if the player gains incidentally from his infraction, i.e. if someone in his position could not reasonably have foreseen how the infraction would gain.

Take the hand in question. What might a cheat's thought process be? "Sitting East, I would expect South to be declaring a major suit contract much of the time and I would like a diamond lead. I was about to open or overcall in diamonds but RHO has messed up my plan by opening 1♦. I have a suitable hand for a natural 2♦ overcall (as some play here), but unfortunately we play it as both majors. Is there anything I can do to show my diamond suit? Ah yes, 1♦, prepared to correct to 2♦ if LHO does not accept it. Partner will be silenced, but I don't care that much with little support for the majors suits and RHO likely to have a fair amount of defence as he's likely to be balanced. I've now bid diamonds in the legal auction, so the lead restrictions in Law 26 do not seem to apply."

The lawmakers clearly believe that Law 23 is relevant to some insufficient bid cases: Law 27B2 includes at the end "and see Law 23". Obviously, it's a matter of judgement for the TD whether or not to apply it to cases like this.

[aguahombre]

 jallerton, on 2014-November-30, 10:02, said:

I think we should apply the Probst cheat test: might a cheat trying to take advantage of the Laws act this way?. We don't adjust if the player gains incidentally from his infraction, i.e. if someone in his position could not reasonably have foreseen how the infraction would gain.

I don't see anything to support "...forseen how the infraction would gain." I see: could have foreseen that it might well gain. There could be more than one way it might well gain, and/or the actual gain might not be one which "could have been" predictable.

But, again, the adjustment without weighting should be the same numeric result anyway in this case. The TD should still go through the process to arrive at an adjustment which is in effect no adjustment.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2014-November-30, 10:28, said:

But, again, the adjustment without weighting should be the same numeric result anyway in this case. The TD should still go through the process to arrive at an adjustment which is in effect no adjustment.

I have, as submariners say, lost the bubble. "An adjustment which is in effect no adjustment"? Please explain.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-30, 14:33, said:

I have, as submariners say, lost the bubble. "An adjustment which is in effect no adjustment"? Please explain.

2D minus 100. 3S minus 100. Not complicated. A PP is not an adjustment; it is a PP, and I wouldn't give one anyway.

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2014-November-29, 19:10, said:

The word "could" implies "suspicion".

No it doesn't.

I have been thinking of mentioning the Probst cheat, since this is a textbook case. jallerton explained it well above, and no further discussion is warranted.

[campboy]

 aguahombre, on 2014-November-30, 10:28, said:

But, again, the adjustment without weighting should be the same numeric result anyway in this case. The TD should still go through the process to arrive at an adjustment which is in effect no adjustment.

I disagree. Law 23 says (subject to the "could have known" condition, etc) that the TD adjusts the score if he considers the offending side has gained. If you want to adjust to the same numeric result then you are ruling that they haven't gained, so you shouldn't be adjusting at all.

[aguahombre]

 campboy, on 2014-November-30, 17:03, said:

I disagree. Law 23 says (subject to the "could have known" condition, etc) that the TD adjusts the score if he considers the offending side has gained. If you want to adjust to the same numeric result then you are ruling that they haven't gained, so you shouldn't be adjusting at all.

We are saying the same thing. He "considers" that the offending side has gained; then he figures out the result without the infraction; and comes up with the same minus 100. Who cares at this point whether he adjusted to minus 100 or let minus 100 stand? It is a process which he should go through in order to come to equity.

The TD does not know the results are equal until completing his task, and with weighting available the results are not equal.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2014-November-30, 16:19, said:

2D minus 100. 3S minus 100. Not complicated. A PP is not an adjustment; it is a PP, and I wouldn't give one anyway.

Who said a PP is an adjustment, or should be used in place of or as part of one? Certainly I did not!

[blackshoe]

 campboy, on 2014-November-30, 17:03, said:

I disagree. Law 23 says (subject to the "could have known" condition, etc) that the TD adjusts the score if he considers the offending side has gained. If you want to adjust to the same numeric result then you are ruling that they haven't gained, so you shouldn't be adjusting at all.

Seems right to me.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2014-November-30, 16:41, said:

No it doesn't.

I have been thinking of mentioning the Probst cheat, since this is a textbook case. jallerton explained it well above, and no further discussion is warranted.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-30, 21:00, said:

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

OK, in small words. We don't think he cheated. His action was one a cheat would take. We adjust against him so that we can also adjust against the person who is trying it on. This is what L23 is for, and maybe it can be made a bit plainer in the next version of the Laws.

[RMB1]

 Vampyr, on 2014-December-01, 23:11, said:

OK, in small words. We don't think he cheated. His action was one a cheat would take. We adjust against him so that we can also adjust against the person who is trying it on. This is what L23 is for, and maybe it can be made a bit plainer in the next version of the Laws.

I don't think it can be so simple. There are different sorts of "cheats" or different ways to "could have been aware". In using analogies such as the probst cheat we have to know whether the cheating is in the taking of illegal action or in the manner of being aware.

In this case, overcaller could have been aware that partner was going to pre-empt in spades by looking at hand records, overhearing another table, or reading the traveller (hacking the bridgemate).
Or he could have been aware that bidding 1♦ (and bidding 2♦ if not accepted) would pre-empt responder because responder would not accept 1♦ and bid 1♥.
Or he could have been aware that he wanted a diamond lead and responder would accept 1♦ (and so the 1♦ overcall would not be subject to Law 26).

Does "could have been aware" include knowing by illegal means, does it include being aware that next to speak never accepts insufficient bids, or does it mean "could have been aware based solely on his hand and the auction"?

[gordontd]

 Vampyr, on 2014-November-30, 16:41, said:

no further discussion is warranted.

That's us told!

[lamford]

 RMB1, on 2014-December-02, 01:59, said:

In this case, overcaller could have been aware that partner was going to pre-empt in spades by looking at hand records, overhearing another table, or reading the traveller (hacking the bridgemate

In this case, overcaller could have been aware that partner was likely to pre-empt in spades by looking at his own hand, with a singleton spade, and North opening the bidding in his own longest suit. Of course South might have been the one with long spades, or the spades could have been divided equally. The test, however, is that he could have been aware that bidding 1D and then 2D could well damage the non-offending side. So there are two "could"s. Most people think that the "could well" means a significant (whatever that means) chance (although I think gordontd thinks it means "is more likely than not to"). If someone accidentally drops the ace of hearts during the auction when partner is thinking of saving over 7H in 7S, we routinely adjust, whatever we think of the dropper's ethics.) The whole purpose of Law23 is that all that is required is that the infraction could well gain and the infractor could have been aware it would gain.

[blackshoe]

Apparently further discussion is warranted. Good!

What are the criteria for "could have been aware"? Is "he's breathing" sufficient? If not, what is sufficient?

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-03, 20:15, said:

What are the criteria for "could have been aware"? Is "he's breathing" sufficient? If not, what is sufficient?

I think you have to estimate it based on the player's experience and expertise. There are many things that an expert could be aware of that a beginner might not realize.