Law 23
#1
Posted 2014-December-03, 00:08
#2
Posted 2014-December-03, 01:40
#3
Posted 2014-December-03, 11:42
barmar, on 2014-December-03, 01:40, said:
Yes but as evidenced by the other thread, some people understand it as applying to the actual player.
#4
Posted 2014-December-03, 15:17
Vampyr, on 2014-December-03, 11:42, 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
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#5
Posted 2014-December-03, 17:14
Trinidad, on 2014-December-03, 15:17, 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.
#6
Posted 2014-December-03, 20:35
Vampyr, on 2014-December-03, 17:14, 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 perpective of why we play bridge and what the TD's role is.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#7
Posted 2014-December-04, 02:01
Trinidad, on 2014-December-03, 15:17, said:
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.
#8
Posted 2014-December-04, 03:01
barmar, on 2014-December-04, 02:01, said:
The Law says:
Quote
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
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#9
Posted 2014-December-04, 03:58
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".
#10
Posted 2014-December-04, 10:36
I don't think a TD would put it that way, unless pressed.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#11
Posted 2014-December-04, 14:44
campboy, on 2014-December-04, 03:58, said:
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.
#12
Posted 2014-December-04, 14:54
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.
#13
Posted 2014-December-04, 15:18
Trinidad, on 2014-December-03, 20:35, said:
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.
#14
Posted 2014-December-04, 15:52
gnasher, on 2014-December-04, 14:54, said:
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
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#15
Posted 2014-December-04, 21:42
axman, on 2014-December-04, 14:44, said:
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 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.
#16
Posted 2014-December-05, 00:03
gnasher, on 2014-December-04, 14:54, said:
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.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#17
Posted 2014-December-05, 01:44
Trinidad, on 2014-December-04, 15:52, said:
...
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.
#18
Posted 2014-December-05, 01:45
blackshoe, on 2014-December-05, 00:03, said:
That would work for me.
#19
Posted 2014-December-05, 10:08
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.
It would be better than the current situation, where often the worst that happens to an offender is that he breaks even.