[barmar]

nige1, on 2016-May-16, 12:33, said:

John Probst postulates a hypothetical "Probst Cheat", a useful construct for a director keen on arriving at just rulings. Without casting aspersions on the actual offender, who is considered to be as pure as the driven snow, the director speculates whether, for a less upright player, such behaviour is likely to be the result of unethical motives. If so, he rules in such way as to discourage the resulting infraction. Unfortunately, such an approach seems incompatible with so-called "Equity" philosophy,

Shouldn't feasibility factor into this? While a cheat might like to be able to pull this off, I agree with Pran that it's highly unlikely that he could notice his partner starting to bid out of turn, realize what bid he's pulling, figure out which call he should make to send the appropriate UI, and make that call simultaneously with his partner.

And it only works if the appropriate call is Pass, doesn't it? Because that's the one that bars himself, forces his partner to guess the level, and then the UI helps him with the guess.

[Zelandakh]

That rather depends on the partner and jurisdiction Barry. In areas where the call is made the moment it leaves the bidding box, there is a reasonably time between the call being "made" and hitting the table, particularly if the player concerned has a habit of tidying their stack during the pull. Most players will not make a distinction between two calls arriving at the table at the same time but being pulled at different times from genuine simultaneous calls. If the local regulations stipulate that the call is not made until being placed on the table then you would clearly prefer to warn partner of the impending COOT instead.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-16, 09:32, said:

And I say that you are wrong in this pran. The vast majority of Easts would guess 3NT with a strong NT in this situation and I find it inconceivable that that would not be regarded as a LA. Pass from West suggests bidding less and it was a condition of the scenario that bidding less was successful, so there was damage resulting from choosing a LA suggested by UI. How is this ok?

It is worse than this too. If I am West and see that my partner is making the 1NT COOT but am too late to stop them, I can if very quick grab the pass card with a very weak hand for a "simultaneous" POOT. Now partner is much better placed than had I done nothing and there is apparently no penalty under your interpretation. And to be honest, it strikes me that this scenario is at least as likely as both East and West simultaneously misreading the dealer on the board. Whether West knowingly breached a law or not though, I do not think it is correct that such a breach should confer an advantage.

Law 23 does not require us to judge whether the Pass was deliberate. It clearly benefits the offenders, in that anybody seeing their partner about to bid out of turn can gain a swing by passing out of turn themselves at the same time, at least under the Norwegian translation of the Laws. But we already know that there is a typo or translation error in Law 23 of these, from another thread, so there is little point listening to what pran has to say on the subject.

Before your Pass out of turn, you could, presumably, have up to 25 points (if 1NT is 15-17). After it, you could only have up to 11 points. If that is not useful UI then I'm a Dutchman Norwegian.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-17, 10:10, said:

That rather depends on the partner and jurisdiction Barry. In areas where the call is made the moment it leaves the bidding box, there is a reasonably time between the call being "made" and hitting the table, particularly if the player concerned has a habit of tidying their stack during the pull. Most players will not make a distinction between two calls arriving at the table at the same time but being pulled at different times from genuine simultaneous calls. If the local regulations stipulate that the call is not made until being placed on the table then you would clearly prefer to warn partner of the impending COOT instead.

I really doubt the ability of the hypothetical cheater to do all that calculation in the fraction of a second it would take to make it seem simultaneous in either of those jurisductions. Unless his partner is a habitual BOOTer, he's going to be taken by surprise when he sees his partner start to bid, and it's going to take a moment for him to suppress the habitual urge to say "It's not your bid" and come up with the best way to take advantage of the situation. And he has to do this before one of the opponents notices and says it's not his bid.

Are we really hypothesizing a player who has considered all this ahead of time, so he can instantly take advantage when he sees it come up at the table? "Whenever I have less than 8 HCP and I'm in 2nd chair, be on the lookout for partner starting to make a 1NT bid out of turn so I can slap the Pass card on the table at the same time." Give me a break.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-May-17, 09:35, said:

Shouldn't feasibility factor into this? While a cheat might like to be able to pull this off, I agree with Pran that it's highly unlikely that he could notice his partner starting to bid out of turn, realize what bid he's pulling, figure out which call he should make to send the appropriate UI, and make that call simultaneously with his partner.

And it only works if the appropriate call is Pass, doesn't it? Because that's the one that bars himself, forces his partner to guess the level, and then the UI helps him with the guess.

Completely wrong. If both calls are out of rotation, then the dealer must be your RHO. In which case, if you do not pass, you will be forced to do so anyway, under Law 31B. Therefore there is a huge gain in getting that pass card on the table with a weak hand before the TD can be called to silence you. Even if they judge that you lost the photo-finish, you will still be silenced now, but partner will be able to base what will be the final call on the UI that you have less than 11 points. Adjusting to 3NTx-5 looks normal when partner has a strong NT and you have passed on a 1-count. The unscrupulous would have an agreement that they pass with a pass and do nothing with a hand that would have opened but will now be silenced.

I can almost see an incident at a North London club ...

[barmar]

This is why the Probst Cheat criteria is such a horrible policy. Hasn't it been invalidated?

[axman]

RMB1, on 2016-May-17, 00:09, said:

The law doesn't provide for untangling multiple COOTS by one side if they are out of turn and non-simultaneous: if one call is accepted what happens to the other call(s).

I seem to be aware of some doctrine that says multiple irregularities are addressed in their chronological order. My mind is that such a thought is rubbish, but that is not to say that rules can be made willy nilly. But, you are probably right that the simultaneous aspect presents insurmountable problems even then.

Generally, my thinking is that most multiple irregularities ought to be resolved in reverse chronology. It being problematic when there are simultaneous irregularities. My thinking is that the law needs to provide a good mechanism for breaking the tie. For instance, when fixing which came first, it is the player in closest proximity in rotation to the rightful turn. That way, there is a methodical route to backtrack. But, if the rightful player is involved, particularly when he is nearly simultaneous but distinctly after, there are additional issues.


But then, there are real problems with the definition of the first call (L17B) and the second call (17C) when they are made by other than the specified individuals. And to a large extent, that is a problem with what the law doesn't do.

RMB1, on 2016-May-17, 00:09, said:

if one call is accepted what happens to the other call(s).

I suspect that no one wants to hear the answer to that, at least the way the law is presently constructed.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-May-17, 10:59, said:

This is why the Probst Cheat criteria is such a horrible policy. Hasn't it been invalidated?

Not at all. It could be argued that an infraction should never gain and that if it does, the perpetrator could have been aware that it would. It did happen, therefore could have happened before, and Sharp and Keen might be out there waiting for their next opportunity.

Others, including I believe gordontd and RMB1, believe that "could have been aware" in Law 23 should be interpreted as "could reasonably have been aware". If that is the case, why does Law 23 just say "could have been aware"?

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2016-May-18, 04:53, said:

If that is the case, why does Law 23 just say "could have been aware"?

Surely you, and most readers here, know the laws better than to have to ask that? One might conversely ask, if anyone always could have been aware, why does the law need to mention awareness at all?

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2016-May-18, 05:38, said:

Surely you, and most readers here, know the laws better than to have to ask that? One might conversely ask, if anyone always could have been aware, why does the law need to mention awareness at all?

In my view, the purpose of Law 23 is to distinguish between conscious acts which gain, when someone "could have been aware" and accidents, such as dropping a card of honour rank. In the latter case, the person could not have been aware, because there was no intention to drop the card of honour rank, therefore awareness cannot be present. And it us up to the TD to decide whether the accident was deliberate, and fortunately most people are honest. You would not punish someone for causing death in a road accident when a wheel came off a fully serviced vehicle, but you might well do so when someone drove at 60 mph in a 30 mph zone. The sole purpose of Law 23 should be to distinguish between intentional and accidental acts, and the former includes carelessness and inattention where someone could have been aware it would gain.

Would you punish someone who "accidentally" dropped the ace of trumps when their partner was considering a sacrifice at the seven level? If you considered, on the balance of probability, that it was not a "conscious act", then you should not do so, as awareness is not possible.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2016-May-18, 06:24, said:

In my view, the purpose of Law 23 is to distinguish between conscious acts which gain, when someone "could have been aware" and accidents, such as dropping a card of honour rank. In the latter case, the person could not have been aware, because there was no intention to drop the card of honour rank, therefore awareness cannot be present. And it us up to the TD to decide whether the accident was deliberate, and fortunately most people are honest. You would not punish someone for causing death in a road accident when a wheel came off a fully serviced vehicle, but you might well do so when someone drove at 60 mph in a 30 mph zone. The sole purpose of Law 23 should be to distinguish between intentional and accidental acts, and the former includes carelessness and inattention where someone could have been aware it would gain.

Would you punish someone who "accidentally" dropped the ace of trumps when their partner was considering a sacrifice at the seven level? If you considered, on the balance of probability, that it was not a "conscious act", then you should not do so, as awareness is not possible.

That law could have been written with that sole intention, but in my opinion it wasn't. Had it been, I can't help feeling it would have used words like "unintended", as elsewhere.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2016-May-18, 08:19, said:

That law could have been written with that sole intention, but in my opinion it wasn't. Had it been, I can't help feeling it would have used words like "unintended", as elsewhere.

The "could have known" clause was inserted in order to avoid any implied accusation of (deliberate) cheating when ruling on an irregularity.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2016-May-18, 08:19, said:

That law could have been written with that sole intention, but in my opinion it wasn't. Had it been, I can't help feeling it would have used words like "unintended", as elsewhere.

It is also possible that they meant "could have" to mean "with any possibility whatsoever", however small. I could have won the lottery on all of the last four occasions I bought a ticket ...

And I think that you give the WBFLC far too much credit for their selection of words in the Laws.

[barmar]

pran, on 2016-May-18, 08:32, said:

The "could have known" clause was inserted in order to avoid any implied accusation of (deliberate) cheating when ruling on an irregularity.

Also, I think, to avoid requiring mind-reading (or dependence on self-serving statements about the player's state of mind) by saying "were aware". So it's more like the definition of LA in the UI law, where we consider what a hypothetical player would do rather than trying to determine what the actual player was thinking.

I've stated many times that I don't think "could have known" includes remote possibilities, because that opens the floodgates to almost any conclusion and makes that qualification practically meaningless.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2016-May-18, 08:39, said:

And I think that you give the WBFLC far too much credit for their selection of words in the Laws.

On the contrary, it was you who started by saying

Quote

why does Law 23 just say "could have been aware"?

and it was I replied

Quote

Surely you, and most readers here, know the laws better than to have to ask that?

Perhaps I should have spelled it out even more clearly?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-May-18, 04:53, said:

Not at all. It could be argued that an infraction should never gain and that if it does, the perpetrator could have been aware that it would. It did happen, therefore could have happened before, and Sharp and Keen might be out there waiting for their next opportunity.

Others, including I believe gordontd and RMB1, believe that "could have been aware" in Law 23 should be interpreted as "could reasonably have been aware". If that is the case, why does Law 23 just say "could have been aware"?

One could argue that "could have been aware" is equivalent to "was aware", which seems to be what you're doing. But that one could argue something or other doesn't make it true.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2016-May-18, 08:32, said:

The "could have known" clause was inserted in order to avoid any implied accusation of (deliberate) cheating when ruling on an irregularity.

Opinion, or fact? If the latter, based on what?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2016-May-18, 10:07, said:

One could argue that "could have been aware" is equivalent to "was aware", which seems to be what you're doing. But that one could argue something or other doesn't make it true.

Yeah, it looks to me as if lamford is arguing the exact opposite. LOL no, I have not asked him. But based on his posts in this thread and others, I am certain that you are mistaken

In any case, it seems that the Laws really do need to address simultaneous and multiple infractions.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-May-18, 10:07, said:

One could argue that "could have been aware" is equivalent to "was aware", which seems to be what you're doing. But that one could argue something or other doesn't make it true.

No, I am arguing that "could have been aware" is not being interpreted correctly. It is being interpreted as "there is a reasonable possibility that someone could have been aware". It does not say that. It should be interpreted literally, that, if there was a possibility, however remote, that someone could have been aware that his infraction could benefit his side, the TD rules against him or her. If the TD is satisified that an action was "involuntary", it fails the "could have been aware" test.

'If I'd meant that, I'd have said it,' said Humpty Dumpty.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2016-May-18, 08:58, said:

Perhaps I should have spelled it out even more clearly?

Indeed, I for one did not understand the point you were making. You wrote "That law could have been written with that sole intention, but in my opinion it wasn't. Had it been, I can't help feeling it would have used words like "unintended", as elsewhere."

Your speculation on what the WBFLC might have done if their intention had been different serves no purpose. You did not address the main issue; the words of Law 23 are not being applied literally. "Could have been aware" is a simple enough phrase.