[aguahombre]

 mycroft, on 2013-September-20, 13:27, said:

Apart from the classic "IB then 4NT", the other one (that has a different special law in place) is "IB, then 'takeout' double".

I usually find that if I'm even close to those cases, the players do understand the Probst Cheat explanation for these.

I was told when I took my TA exam that it was likely I would never run into a Law 23 case. So far, that has been true; there have been a couple of times I've had to investigate it, but never yet applied it. But I'm glad it's there.

I run into potential L23 situations often enough that it remains in the forefront of my mind whenever there is an IB and in a few other common situations. I don't understand the other part, though. Am I wrong to tell the IB'r he is not allowed to subsitute a double ---except when he is making one of those "same or more narrow meaning" doubles which don't bar partner?

[mycroft]

No, you are not wrong...Law 27B3. My meaning was that "IB then double, silencing partner, when I have a clear penalty double and no other way to show it" is a big enough issue that, like "IB then 'blackwood', only way to get to play 4NT", it has a special Law written.

Certainly you should have L23 in your head when ruling in these cases. Just don't expect to have to apply it. There are many cases where "they happened to get lucky after being put under restrictions" (legal, L10C4) that are not L23 cases, because it isn't clear that, at the time of the infraction, it "could well be" of benefit to impose the restrictions the infraction would impose.

[blackshoe]

 iviehoff, on 2013-September-20, 08:53, said:

But deciding that a player has infracted deliberately to take advantage of the consequences is usually somewhere that directors don't like to go without incredibly strong evidence. That's the advantage of Law 23, which is entirely adequate in the present situation.

Perhaps, but you're avoiding the dilemma (if that's the right word) that I presented. It seems to me that someone suggested that "could have known" is always true in IB cases. If so, we don't need Law 23, we just award an ArtAS - but the law has to allow that, and it currently doesn't.

The question is "how does the TD decide when Law 23 should be applied? What criteria does he use?" It seems some want "he made an IB, therefore apply Law 23". That cannot be the intent of this law.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2013-September-20, 16:16, said:

Perhaps, but you're avoiding the dilemma (if that's the right word) that I presented. It seems to me that someone suggested that "could have known" is always true in IB cases. If so, we don't need Law 23, we just award an ArtAS - but the law has to allow that, and it currently doesn't.

The question is "how does the TD decide when Law 23 should be applied? What criteria does he use?" It seems some want "he made an IB, therefore apply Law 23". That cannot be the intent of this law.

Who wants "he made an IB, therefore apply Law 23"?

I want "He made an IB, and he gained as a result of the prescribed rectification; therefore apply Law 23". Or "He made an IB, and any gain was not as a result of the prescribed rectification, so he keeps his score."

How on earth do you get from this to "He made an IB, so award 60:40"?

[blackshoe]

Go back and read what I actually said. I'm pretty sure you can figure it out.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2013-September-20, 20:24, said:

Go back and read what I actually said. I'm pretty sure you can figure it out.

I've read all of your posts in this thread several times. Sorry, but if I haven't so far understood the point you were trying to make, there's no possibility of my understanding it without further explanation. So why not humour me and explain it again?

[campboy]

 blackshoe, on 2013-September-20, 16:16, said:

The question is "how does the TD decide when Law 23 should be applied? What criteria does he use?" It seems some want "he made an IB, therefore apply Law 23". That cannot be the intent of this law.

Typically the criterion I use is some version of the Probst test.

If you were allowed to deliberately silence partner, would it have been a reasonable tactic in this situation?

[barmar]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-September-20, 10:11, said:

That is why I wrote law/regulation Barry. I am making no reference to spoken bidding with this suggestion. Having a law work in a particular way for historical reasons rather than having the best law available strikes me as wrong.

Ahh, you're saying that it has always been a bad law, we never should have allowed correcting an IB. That's a reasonable position to take.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2013-September-21, 03:34, said:

I've read all of your posts in this thread several times. Sorry, but if I haven't so far understood the point you were trying to make, there's no possibility of my understanding it without further explanation. So why not humour me and explain it again?

My post #30 was a response to paulg's #6 and your #20, which seemed to be saying that Law 23 (almost?) always applies. My response was that if that's the case, the law should be changed to simply award an ArtAS in all IB cases. That is where 60-40 came from.

Under the current law, we don't do that, of course, so we need to know when Law 23 applies, and when it does not. That's the question I asked in #43.

Someone, perhaps you, pointed out that the inclusion of "well" in Law 23 is important. "Well", in this context, means "very probably". So it seems to me that there must be a high probability that a player "could have known" that his IB might cause damage. As someone else (Barry, perhaps?) pointed out, this is rarely the case. So it seems to me that the approach to using Law 23 should be that it is unusual to do so, not that "there was damage, so we apply Law 23", or even "this is obvious; he bid 3NT (IB) because he wanted to stop in 4NT".

[paulg]

My problem is with the wording: a sentence that has two 'could' phrases in it gives complete freedom to the director in IB cases. It might as well say that the Director should adjust if he thinks it is right to do so.

If the intent, as seems both likely and reasonable, is to adjust when a player successfully reaches a contract that otherwise would be unlikely without the IB, then say that. The lawmakers have removed intent and replaced it possible intent, because burden of proof is so difficult. I think they should remove worrying about intent completely.

[aguahombre]

 paulg, on 2013-September-21, 09:35, said:

My problem is with the wording: a sentence that has two 'could' phrases in it gives complete freedom to the director in IB cases. It might as well say that the Director should adjust if he thinks it is right to do so.

If the intent, as seems both likely and reasonable, is to adjust when a player successfully reaches a contract that otherwise would be unlikely without the IB, then say that. The lawmakers have removed intent and replaced it possible intent, because burden of proof is so difficult. I think they should remove worrying about intent completely.

Good read and valid points. I believe they have removed worry about the intent of the particular player adequately enough to stay away from accusing; and that is fine with me. But, if L23 were changed to your specifications, that would be good also.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2013-September-21, 07:02, said:

Ahh, you're saying that it has always been a bad law, we never should have allowed correcting an IB. That's a reasonable position to take.

Not allow correcting an IB, and just cancel the board? This doesn't work, because as others have noted, if the penalty is, say, 40% a player might decide that this is a very reasonable tactic when Meckwell come to their table.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2013-September-21, 11:27, said:

Not allow correcting an IB, and just cancel the board? This doesn't work, because as others have noted, if the penalty is, say, 40% a player might decide that this is a very reasonable tactic when Meckwell come to their table.

That action, if found to be deliberate, would result in a procedural or disciplinary penalty in addition to the adjustment.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2013-September-21, 07:39, said:

My post #30 was a response to paulg's #6 and your #20, which seemed to be saying that Law 23 (almost?) always applies. My response was that if that's the case, the law should be changed to simply award an ArtAS in all IB cases. That is where 60-40 came from.

My suggestion was that an adjustment should be made under Law 23 if, and only if, there was damage. The adjusted score would generally be a real bridge score, intended to restore equity.

Your suggestion appears to be that there should be an adjustment even when there is no damage. The adjusted score would always be a fixed artificial score, independent of the amount of any damage, and therefore not intended to restore equity.

When you linked my suggestion to yours using the words "if that's the case, the law should be changed to", you seemed to imply that your suggestion was equivalent to, as good as, or an improvement on my suggestion. I think that is obviously not true.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2013-September-21, 11:39, said:

My suggestion was that an adjustment should be made under Law 23 if, and only if, there was damage. The adjusted score would generally be a real bridge score, intended to restore equity.

Your suggestion appears to be that there should be an adjustment even when there is no damage. The adjusted score would always be a fixed artificial score, independent of the amount of any damage, and therefore not intended to restore equity.

When you linked my suggestion to yours using the words "if that's the case, the law should be changed to", you seemed to imply that your suggestion was equivalent to, as good as, or an improvement on my suggestion. I think that is obviously not true.

The question of damage is not the only question that needs to be answered affirmatively in applying Law 23. There is also the question of whether the player "could well have known", etcetera, and for that matter the question just what, exactly, that means.

I was reacting to what I perceived as "if it makes an IB, we need Law 23 to shoot it, so apply Law 23 and shoot it".

[aguahombre]

When we apply L23, if we apply L23, we have already determined damage. The damage is that the infraction worked to the OS advantage OR the damage is that if the infraction had not occured a more favorable result for the opponents could well have been attained.

Even if we use SEWog and make the NOS keep their score, a split would be based on the rest of the field being damaged.

My point is: we don't have to first determine there was damage and then consider L23. We can determine from L23 the damage, and then apply it.

[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2013-September-21, 20:15, said:

When we apply L23, if we apply L23, we have already determined damage. The damage is that the infraction worked to the OS advantage OR the damage is that if the infraction had not occured a more favorable result for the opponents could well have been attained.

Even if we use SEWog and make the NOS keep their score, a split would be based on the rest of the field being damaged.

My point is: we don't have to first determine there was damage and then consider L23. We can determine from L23 the damage, and then apply it.

There is a well established principle that rulings shall never be based on the effect of irregularities on the rest of the field.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2013-September-21, 19:07, said:

I was reacting to what I perceived as "if it makes an IB, we need Law 23 to shoot it, so apply Law 23 and shoot it".

Then your perception was competely wrong.

[aguahombre]

 pran, on 2013-September-22, 01:16, said:

There is a well established principle that rulings shall never be based on the effect of irregularities on the rest of the field.

True, but if the damage is there and we don't adjust for the offending side because the NOS committed a greater, more costly error unrelated to the offense, we damage the rest of the field and should have applied L23.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2013-September-22, 06:25, said:

Then your perception was competely wrong.

Fair enough. Shall I commit seppuku?