[campboy]

 aguahombre, on 2012-October-14, 15:24, said:

Willing to accept that I am wrong, according to EBL instruction, and even ACBL or of WBF or whatever. But just the word "removed" doesn't get it done. If it aint there, it has been removed.

Of course it has been removed. But it was removed during the previous board, so the call was made on the previous board.

[bluejak]

 pran, on 2012-October-15, 09:49, said:

Apparently unlike you I do not consider any bridge player a cheat without sufficient evidence.

Quote from Goldfinger (Ian Fleming):

Once is happenstance,
twice is coincidence,
third time it is enemy action.

How many times do you think your cheat would leave a pass card like that before becoming revealed?

You clearly have little understanding of the purpose of Law 23 and other similar Laws. The whole idea is that you do not label anyone a cheat, and Law 23 never does. The Probst test is to decide when Law 23 applies. If a player does what a cheat would do then of course you do not call him a cheat, but Law 23 applies so you adjust.

[axman]

 bluejak, on 2012-October-16, 07:47, said:

You clearly have little understanding of the purpose of Law 23 and other similar Laws. The whole idea is that you do not label anyone a cheat, and Law 23 never does. The Probst test is to decide when Law 23 applies. If a player does what a cheat would do then of course you do not call him a cheat, but Law 23 applies so you adjust.

One of the disturbing things I find is the abuse of players that arises from law writers that are too lazy to construct good law such as that which balances a prescribed remedy to a particular crime.

It is little comfort to the pure in heart to be punished as if a cheat merely because someone else claims they ‘could have known’ and that the law writers are unwilling to distinguish the innocents from the guilty.

[jeffford76]

 axman, on 2012-October-16, 12:06, said:

It is little comfort to the pure in heart to be punished as if a cheat merely because someone else claims they ‘could have known’ and that the law writers are unwilling to distinguish the innocents from the guilty.

What do you propose instead? Certain behaviors are punished because people can intentionally use them to gain advantage. By always punishing the behavior, we ensure that all of the people doing it intentionally are punished, and we avoid having to call someone a cheat which could lead to a lawsuit. It's really not that hard as a director to say "this irregularity is punished in this way whether you did it on purpose or not".

[axman]

 jeffford76, on 2012-October-16, 12:23, said:

What do you propose instead? Certain behaviors are punished because people can intentionally use them to gain advantage. By always punishing the behavior, we ensure that all of the people doing it intentionally are punished, and we avoid having to call someone a cheat which could lead to a lawsuit. It's really not that hard as a director to say "this irregularity is punished in this way whether you did it on purpose or not".

One of the disturbing things I find is the abuse of players that arises from law writers that are too lazy to construct good law such as that which balances a prescribed remedy to a particular crime.

It is little comfort to the pure in heart to be punished as if a cheat merely because someone else claims they ‘could have known’.


As I said, the law should be constructed such that by turning the crank on the irregularity there should be no need for the ‘could have known’.

For instance, imagine that E was dealer in the subject case and turning the crank on a properly constructed law:

The TD finds that S had done nothing during the auction period except take his cards from the board. Ruling: the extraneous bidding card does not constitute part of this auction and is removed.

An assertion that W COOT? Ruling: N’s call condoned the putative COOT without penalty and the auction proceeds. If E passes then [there being four consecutive passes, the last being in rotation] the auction is scored as a PassOut.

Commentary- E could have called for a ruling on S’s ostensibly OOT bidding card and did not. Having acted he has no expectation for redress arising from his own such misunderstanding. N & S removed their hands from the board prior to S clearing his previous bidding cards. They have no expectation for redress arising from their own such misunderstanding.

Further commentary- N had the opportunity to penalize W’s putative COOT [ostensibly because of his own misunderstanding arising from his partner’s irregularity] thereby giving S his opportunity to call- but instead, condoned it.

[campboy]

A player who commits an infraction which leads to a law-23 adjustment is not being given that adjustment because he could have known. He is being given the adjustment because the NOS were damaged.

The only alternative to the current law 23 would be one which came into force even if the player could not have known. The lawmakers feel, however, that there should be no redress for "rub of the green", that is to say unforeseeable benefits of an infraction.

The purpose here is to restore equity, not to punish the player who committed the irregularity and certainly not to treat him as a cheat. If we know someone is cheating he will get rather more than an adjusted score!

[sailoranch]

Just a question. What constitutes "misinformation" in Law 21? It seems like South's decoration pass card fooled West and would be misinformation in the normal sense of the word. But is legal misinformation limited to answers about agreements and such?

[barmar]

I believe the "misinformation" in Law 21 is generally intended to refer to the alerts and explanations required by Law 20.

However, Law 20 also talks about reviews of the auction. If an opponent is restating the auction, and makes a mistake in this, that might also constitute misinformation. If this is the case, we could treat the bidding cards sitting on the table as analogous, and conclude that having the wrong cards on the table is equivalent to an incorrect review of the auction.

[gordontd]

 sailoranch, on 2012-October-16, 18:00, said:

Just a question. What constitutes "misinformation" in Law 21? It seems like South's decoration pass card fooled West and would be misinformation in the normal sense of the word. But is legal misinformation limited to answers about agreements and such?

I once made a ruling in this sort of situation based on the left-over bid on the table constituting misinformation. I later discussed it with the Chief TD of the WBF, and he agreed that this was a reasonable approach.