[barmar]

axman, on Nov 6 2009, 12:12 PM, said:

To expand further, shouldn’t the remedies apply to all contestants rather than to select classes of contestants? For instance, aren’t all players required to play only at  their appointed turn?  Yet, defenders pay dearly when they fail while declarer [when intelligent] has only upside.

Declarer knows what's in both his and dummy's hands, so the types of problems caused by defenders playing out of order can't occur. If declarer's LHO leads, and declarer plays a card from his hand before playing from dummy, how can he gain?

Declarer may be able to gain an advantage by leading from the wrong hand. Perhaps he's in hand with no entry to dummy, but he calls a card from dummy anyway. If he did this on purpose, hoping that the opponents won't realize the mistake, it's a violation of the Law prohibiting committing infractions intentionally. If he did it by mistake (sometimes we don't realize we've messed up the communication), requiring him to lead from the correct hand is sufficient redress. And if the opponents don't notice that he led from the wrong hand, it doesn't matter what the remedy is; if they don't notice, they're obviously not going to call the TD to get the remedy.

[axman]

barmar, on Nov 8 2009, 03:18 AM, said:

axman, on Nov 6 2009, 12:12 PM, said:

To expand further, shouldn’t the remedies apply to all contestants rather than to select classes of contestants? For instance, aren’t all players required to play only at  their appointed turn?  Yet, defenders pay dearly when they fail while declarer [when intelligent] has only upside.

Declarer knows what's in both his and dummy's hands, so the types of problems caused by defenders playing out of order can't occur. If declarer's LHO leads, and declarer plays a card from his hand before playing from dummy, how can he gain?

Declarer may be able to gain an advantage by leading from the wrong hand. Perhaps he's in hand with no entry to dummy, but he calls a card from dummy anyway. If he did this on purpose, hoping that the opponents won't realize the mistake, it's a violation of the Law prohibiting committing infractions intentionally. If he did it by mistake (sometimes we don't realize we've messed up the communication), requiring him to lead from the correct hand is sufficient redress. And if the opponents don't notice that he led from the wrong hand, it doesn't matter what the remedy is; if they don't notice, they're obviously not going to call the TD to get the remedy.

What is gained by treating players the same as much as practical?

First, they are more likely by a temendous margin to not commit so many irregularities.

an ancilliary benefit of there being fewer infractions is that there will be fewer opportunities to incorrectly remedy them [see the L67 thread].

ps it might be terrifying to examine the gordian knot contained in L57A, especially when juxtaposed with L60

[lamford]

pran, on Nov 8 2009, 02:34 AM, said:

Because it is a general law that (according to principles) apply unless overriden by a more specific law. And neither Law 57 nor Law 59 overrides Law 16.

"A player may play any otherwise legal card if he is unable to lead or play as required" looks pretty specific to me.

There is no indication that Law 16 takes precedence over Law 57 and Law 59 which specify precisely the penalty to be exacted.

We had a lengthy discussion on the old forum of a lead out of turn where a defender gained advantage because he was unable to comply with the requested penalty - indeed there was no recovery for declarer. The majority view was that this was rub of the green. If, in this example, it is believed the defender could have known the infraction could benefit his side, then the TD does indeed award an adjusted score, but if not, then it is again just rub of the green.

[pran]

lamford, on Nov 8 2009, 08:23 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 8 2009, 02:34 AM, said:

Because it is a general law that (according to principles) apply unless overriden by a more specific law. And neither Law 57 nor Law 59 overrides Law 16.

"A player may play any otherwise legal card if he is unable to lead or play as required" looks pretty specific to me.

Is a card "otherwise legal" if it violates law 16? I don't think so.

[lamford]

Your interpretation is certainly possible, but I would read the clause as meaning that the player can play any legal card within the rules of bridge. Legal is used to define "card", not the player's action. In another clause:

<snip>"If unable to follow suit, a player may play any card (unless he is subject to restriction after an irregularity committed by his side)."<snip>

This makes it clear that if there is a restriction, such as one exercised in Law 57, then that takes priority; if there is not the player may play any card, subject to other considerations such as UI.

You are arguing that if the declarer asks the defender to play the highest card of the suit led, and it transpires that he is unable to comply, he will still be punished with an adjusted score! Another clause states:

<snip>"If the case is clearly covered by a Law that prescribes the rectification for the irregularity, he <the TD> determines that rectification and ensures that it is implemented."<snip>

I contend that Law 57 clearly covers the play of a card out of turn, admittedly pretty hopelessly. In addition we have, as pointed out by Richard Hills:

"The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side."

I submit that in this case, Law 57 is clearly unduly advantageous to the offender who plays out of turn, but the rectification is prescribed, and therefore the director may not award an adjusted score. If this is not an example of such a case, I do not know of one that is.

[pran]

lamford, on Nov 9 2009, 05:45 PM, said:

Your interpretation is certainly possible, but I would read the clause as meaning that the player can play any legal card within the rules of bridge. Legal is used to define "card", not the player's action. In another clause:

<snip>"If unable to follow suit,  a player may play any card (unless he is subject to restriction after an irregularity committed by his side)."<snip>

This makes it clear that if there is a restriction, such as one exercised in Law 57, then that takes priority; if there is not the player may play any card, subject to other considerations such as UI.

You are arguing that if the declarer asks the defender to play the highest card of the suit led, and it transpires that he is unable to comply, he will still be punished with an adjusted score! Another clause states:

<snip>"If the case is clearly covered by a Law that prescribes the rectification for the  irregularity,  he <the TD>  determines  that  rectification  and  ensures  that  it  is implemented."<snip>

I contend that Law 57 clearly covers the play of a card out of turn, admittedly pretty hopelessly. In addition we have, as pointed out by Richard Hills:

"The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification  provided  in  these  Laws  is  either  unduly  severe  or advantageous to either side."

I submit that in this case, Law 57 is clearly unduly advantageous to the offender who plays out of turn, but the rectification is prescribed, and therefore the director may not award an adjusted score. If this is not an example of such a case, I do not know of one that is.

I have a feeling that some of the rules on penalty cards are sufficiently relevant to be quoted:

Law 50E. Information from a Penalty Card
1. Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players.
2. Other information derived from sight of a penalty card is unauthorized for the partner of the player who has the penalty card (but authorized for declarer).

The effect of this is that partner to a player who has or have had a penalty card may not (until the card has been exposed through legal play) choose among logical alternative plays one that could be suggested by knowledge from the existence of this penalty card, regardless of whether such play conforms with any restriction imposed according to Law 50D / Law 59.

What Law 50E essentially states is that only the knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized for the offender's partner. The knowledge that partner has the card or that he (in case) wanted to play it is unauthorized (until the card is exposed in a legal play).

I see no reason why a different principle should apply to knowledge from a card being exposed from a premature play by partner?

[lamford]

pran, on Nov 9 2009, 03:24 PM, said:

I see no reason why a different principle should apply to knowledge from a card being exposed from a premature play by partner?

I do. There are Laws that deal with a penalty card, and there are Laws that deal with a premature play. The latter are very specific; no doubt the Lawmakers will defend their deficient Laws by interpreting them in an unusual way, but it is clear to me that Law 57 inadequately deals with some premature plays. And I fully agree that somehow or other one cannot be allowed to profit from the play; but as the Laws stand one can. Change them is the answer. And meanwhile issue a WBFLC interpretation.

[pran]

lamford, on Nov 9 2009, 11:20 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 9 2009, 03:24 PM, said:

I see no reason why a different principle should apply to knowledge from a card being exposed from a premature play by partner?

I do. There are Laws that deal with a penalty card, and there are Laws that deal with a premature play. The latter are very specific; no doubt the Lawmakers will defend their deficient Laws by interpreting them in an unusual way, but it is clear to me that Law 57 inadequately deals with some premature plays. And I fully agree that somehow or other one cannot be allowed to profit from the play; but as the Laws stand one can. Change them is the answer. And meanwhile issue a WBFLC interpretation.

Well, we have Law 16, on which some here dispute the applicability.

But as pointed out on BLML (a very commendable list) we also have Law 23 that certainly cannot be disputed and which is applicable to any irregularity whatsoever.

[blackshoe]

pran, on Nov 9 2009, 08:05 PM, said:

... BLML (a very commendable list)

I don't know about that. One reason I unsubscribed from that list is that I got tired of the silly arguments people got into. I don't really care how many angels can dance on a penalty card.

[lamford]

pran, on Nov 9 2009, 08:05 PM, said:

But as pointed out on BLML (a very commendable list) we also have Law 23 that certainly cannot be disputed and which is applicable to any irregularity whatsoever.

You keep repeating yourself. I have not disputed the applicablity of Law 23. However, at the risk of repeating myself, I have quoted 12B2: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

You are trying to apply Law 23 because Law 57 screws up. Exactly what Law 12B2 tells you not to do.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on Nov 10 2009, 11:25 AM, said:

You are trying to apply Law 23 because Law 57 screws up. Exactly what Law 12B2 tells you not to do.

Would you dispute the application of Law 23 to Law 27 and Law 28 (for example) cases? What is the difference?

[lamford]

In the case of Law 27, there is already a clause for when the non-offending side is damaged, 27D, and it also says, in two places, "see Law 23". Law 28 also indicates that Law 16D2 applies.

I am quite happy that the Laws should say that Law 23 takes precedence over all other clauses, but there is nothing to indicate that it does. Law 44C states that the obligation to follow suit takes precedence over all other requirements (although this seems to be ignored by members of my club); perhaps it should say something similar in Law 23. Law 12A1 caters for where the Laws do not provide indemnity - for example in the Alcatraz Coup - but 12B2 indicates that where there is rectification provided in the Laws, that the TD cannot award an adjusted score. Furthermore, 84B states:

B. Law Provides Rectification
If the case is clearly covered by a Law that prescribes the rectification for the irregularity, he <the TD> determines that rectification and ensures that it is implemented.

So, I argue that the problem is that Law 57 is faulty - it does provide rectification but that is inadequate owing to bad drafting. Let us say the player dropped the card accidentally, I would still want to punish the "offender", but Law 23 would not work anymore. If Law 57 were correct, then a defender could never gain from a play out of turn; surely this is what is desired? Why have the TD required to apply Law 57, and then find out if it provided sufficient redress?

[pran]

lamford, on Nov 10 2009, 11:25 AM, said:

pran, on Nov 9 2009, 08:05 PM, said:

But as pointed out on BLML (a very commendable list) we also have Law 23 that certainly cannot be disputed and which is applicable to any irregularity whatsoever.

You keep repeating yourself. I have not disputed the applicablity of Law 23. However, at the risk of repeating myself, I have quoted 12B2: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

You are trying to apply Law 23 because Law 57 screws up. Exactly what Law 12B2 tells you not to do.

Sorry, I am not aware if I have mentioned Law 23 earlier on this thread, but I am in the middle of fighting a flu and may have forgotten. (I still have the firm opinion that Law 16B is the important law here, but remembered when seeing the post on BLML that "yes, L23 is of course also relevant".)

My own bottom line: I am quite happy with L57 as it is, and so is apparently also WBFLC since that law has not really been changed since 1987, maybe even longer ago.

PS.: L12B2 does not preclude adjustments under law 23 here. L23 allows adjustment if the offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side. Such adjustment is different from rectifications due to the irregularity itself.

[lamford]

pran, on Nov 10 2009, 08:02 AM, said:

My own bottom line: I am quite happy with L57 as it is, and so is apparently also WBFLC since that law has not really been changed since 1987, maybe even longer ago.

And I would correct it by inserting "require or" before forbid in 3. That caters for the vast majority of plays out of turn. I think one also needs clarification that Law 23 takes priority over other Laws which say the opposite (in certain situations) such as 12B2 and 84B. My colleague - a social bridge player here who drafts legal documents - believes the current Laws indicate that Law 23 should NOT apply when there is a specific rectification in another law.

[lamford]

pran, on Nov 10 2009, 08:02 AM, said:

PS.: L12B2 does not preclude adjustments under law 23 here. L23 allows adjustment if the offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side. Such adjustment is different from rectifications due to the irregularity itself.

The Law says "may not award an adjusted score", it does not specify the nature of the adjustment. But I agree the TD could say that he is not adjusting the score "on the ground that the rectification <snip> is unduly advantageous to either side" but because the player "could have been aware". But surely the reason that he would be adjusting the score is because Law 57 fails. I presume you would adjust the score if the player dropped the card by accident, but now under 16B3, but again it is because Law 57 fails.

[pran]

lamford, on Nov 10 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

And I would correct it by inserting "require or" before forbid in 3. That caters for the vast majority of plays out of turn. I think one also needs clarification that Law 23 takes priority over other Laws which say the opposite such as 12B2 and 84B. My colleague - a social bridge player here - believes the current Laws indicate that Law 23 should NOT apply when there is a specific rectification in another law.

I don't know, but I feel pretty confident that WBFLC during at least 20 years has carefully considered the wording of L57 and that there is a solid reason for the way it has remained essentially unchanged through at least three generations of the laws.

Law 23 was originally created to give the Director a tool against a player who used the laws to prevent his partner from bidding on when he thought this would be unfortunate. The Director could use this tool whenever he could show a possibility of intent behind an irregularity (without any need to prove such intent).

Eventually this law has grown to where it is today, not only as a tool in cases of a forced pass but a tool in any case where there is a possibility that a player could have used an irregularity for the purpose of obtaining an advantage. The important feature of law 23 is that the Director does not need to prove intent, only to show that the offender could have been aware of a possible advantage.

Law 12B2 governs all situations where the irregularity could not possibly have been committed deliberately for a reason, but once there is a real possibility of intent then Law 23 kicks in and an adjustment should be made by the Director if he judges that the non-offending side has been damaged even after the prescribed rectification.

[lamford]

pran, on Nov 10 2009, 08:42 AM, said:

Law 12B2 governs all situations where the irregularity could not possibly have been committed deliberately for a reason.

Yet here I think the TD should be able to adjust because the opponents have benefited from dropping a card accidentally. This time, I would be unhappy when the TD applied 12B2, although I would agree he would be technically correct.

I could not find any reference to Law 57 in the few WBFLC minutes I have. I would be interested in any reason for rejecting what to me seems an obvious improvement, and it seems at least possible that nobody has considered the particular defect previously.