[lamford]

---

Matchpoints

This was the flattest board of the evening at the North London club this week, with one exception, the board where RR was East. He led the nine of clubs out of turn against SB, South. "DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR", yelled SB, who had been told not to bellow when summoning the official. "Can't you follow simple auctions, RR?" SB asked, "after all you are simple enough." "Sorry I thought it was my lead against 4H", RR replied. "That was the previous board, and that remark is UI to your partner," SB responded, "are you retarded?" "No, I still have a few months to go before I reach 65, so I am still working part-time", RR answered.

The TD, OO, arrived and read out the full text of Law 54 and Law 50, although SB already knew them both by heart. "I will prevent a club lead," responded SB, who was looking forward to a lead into one of his tenaces. The nine of clubs was picked up. West, ChCh, cashed his three aces and was still not able to switch to a club, but whatever he exited with declarer could only make eight tricks, as it could never gain West to split on the first round of clubs, even without the UI that his partner had the nine. At all 11 other tables where this board was played 3NT had made on the lead of the queen of clubs as declarer could build a third trick in clubs, and East had no entry, so this was a complete bottom for NS, which they could do nothing about."

"I don't think I can adjust I am afraid", replied OO. "It was a curious hand", he continued. "The only way to beat 3NT by South was for East to lead his singleton against 4H." The Rabbit blushed, unsure whether he was being ridiculed or complimented. OO resumed "I think SB might have made the hand by leaving the 9♣ as an MPC and allowing West to lead what he liked. If West then led a low club, I could adjust under 50E4. It is not clear to me what would happen if an astute West (and there are few astuter than ChCh) worked this out and adopted the same defence of cashing all three aces and exiting again".

SB was unhappy. He recited Law 12B without pause for breath:
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

Also, he continued, "RR could have been aware that leading a singleton out of turn against 4H could work to his advantage. The fact that the contract was 3NT should not prevent a Law 72C adjustment."

How do you rule?

[weejonnie]

The objective of score adjustment means that when the TD is empowered to adjust the score (12A or 12C1) - either through the laws or to resolve a situation that isn't covered by the laws - then he does so to redress damage i.e. doesn't use it to penalise the OS (12B). It does not mean that just because a side is damaged that the TD has the right/ obligation to adjust the score - instead he applies the rectification stated in the appropriate law.

In this case we look at 72C - certainly if the conditions mentioned are met then an adjusted score is authorised

"If the Director determines that an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity
that it could well damage the non‐offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue
(if not completed). At the conclusion of play the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers
the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity."

Since RR was not aware of the final contract I cant TBH see how he could have been aware that the lead could well damage the NOS playing it.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-October-01, 02:11, said:

Since RR was not aware of the final contract I cant TBH see how he could have been aware that the lead could well damage the NOS playing it.

The last six infractions that RR committed damaged the non-offending side. In all of them he might well have feigned stupidity, flushed with the success that his own idiocy achieved. Law 72C states that you adjust if a player "could have been aware" that his infraction "could well damage the NOS". I think that any infraction could well damage the non-offending side, because of the ridiculous rule 12B2 which should state as pran says.

Given that the NOS are not guaranteed to get equity restored, this is an incentive for rabbits to randomise the results by deliberately committing infractions and pretending to be dead from the neck up. Their guardian angels will do the rest.

In my opinion, (almost always) whenever you commit an infraction, you could be aware that it could well damage the non-offending side, if it does do so. And you are so aware because previous infractions, not necessarily by yourself, have done so. And you are also aware that the NOS are not guaranteed to get equity restored. You don't need to be aware of how or why. Only that it is possible. And, as a TD, I am entitled to "determine that an offender could have been aware" while 12B2 remains on the statute book in its erroneous form. And I know Brian Senior would also so determine.

[blackshoe]

I find the suggestion that the Rueful Rabbit might feign stupidity ludicrous.

[weejonnie]

The Rabbit is a scrupulously ethical player. Regrettably there are players who indulge in sharp practice (one with the initials HH) prepared to hide behind the laws - and not all of them are found in a certain North-London Bridge Club.

As a TD we do have one protection : 72B1

Of course sometimes rectification is actually better for the NOS than an adjusted score. The classic example is a revoke where there is usually a fixed 1 or 2 trick penalty. Other examples are COOTS/ IBs when the NOS get a better result than if the COOT/ IB hadn't been made.

For the sake of logic chopping, I would agree that whenever an infraction is committed "you could be aware that it could well damage the non-offending side"; however,"the law does not concern itself with trifles" and there must be a point at which the probability that "you could be aware" is so low that it can be neglected. There is, of course, no definition of such a point - it is purely subjective.

So: what would you have us do?

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-October-01, 10:56, said:

The Rabbit is a scrupulously ethical player. Regrettably there are players who indulge in sharp practice (one with the initials HH) prepared to hide behind the laws - and not all of them are found in a certain North-London Bridge Club.

As a TD we do have one protection : 72B1

Of course sometimes rectification is actually better for the NOS than an adjusted score. The classic example is a revoke where there is usually a fixed 1 or 2 trick penalty. Other examples are COOTS/ IBs when the NOS get a better result than if the COOT/ IB hadn't been made.

For the sake of logic chopping, I would agree that whenever an infraction is committed "you could be aware that it could well damage the non-offending side"; however,"the law does not concern itself with trifles" and there must be a point at which the probability that "you could be aware" is so low that it can be neglected. There is, of course, no definition of such a point - it is purely subjective.

So: what would you have us do?

If a revoke gains, the TD is empowered to restore equity. For some other infractions which gain, you state that the TD is not allowed to restore equity as you think 12B2 overrides 12B1, and that is the majority view, it has to be said. I think that a BOOT or LOOT can often gain as the opponents may well get a worse result than without the BOOT or LOOT. And this applies to other infractions such as dropping or exposing a card. I and just about everyone with half a brain could be aware that it could well damage the NOS. Perhaps the probability is 10%. Perhaps 30% of the time it loses, and the other 60% of the time it breaks even. Certainly, the unethical player, down in a match, should deliberately throw in the odd BOOT or LOOT to try to change the tide. The purpose of "could have been aware" is that we do not need to accuse the person of cheating. I have struggled to find another sport or game where an infraction can gain, unless of course it is not noticed like deliberate handball in soccer! It is shameful that the Lawmakers have allowed this opportunity.

So what would you have us do if ChCh, rather than RR, deliberately led the nine of clubs out of turn, and deliberately dropped the AH in another thread. Let him get away with it?

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2018-October-01, 10:56, said:

Of course sometimes rectification is actually better for the NOS than an adjusted score. The classic example is a revoke where there is usually a fixed 1 or 2 trick penalty. Other examples are COOTS/ IBs when the NOS get a better result than if the COOT/ IB hadn't been made.

For the sake of logic chopping, I would agree that whenever an infraction is committed "you could be aware that it could well damage the non-offending side"; however,"the law does not concern itself with trifles" and there must be a point at which the probability that "you could be aware" is so low that it can be neglected. There is, of course, no definition of such a point - it is purely subjective.

So: what would you have us do?

I'm curious to see the reply of @nige1.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2018-October-01, 14:33, said:

I'm curious to see the reply of @nige1.

He will just say the laws should be on one page!

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2018-October-01, 14:25, said:

I have struggled to find another sport or game where an infraction can gain, unless of course it is not noticed like deliberate handball in soccer! It is shameful that the Lawmakers have allowed this opportunity.

This is an important issue, and I am unconvinced by those who see inherent differences between "mind" sports and "physical" sports.
I have a long experience of the latter at high level and can testify that there is little if any difference, ultimately it's all in the mind, be it the Ironman or the Bermuda Bowl.
Minor cheating by unethical players gain regularly in almost any sport, from cutting a corner in a marathon to simulating a foul in soccer to putting in a last blow after the bell in boxing.
If bridge has a difference it is that such infractions are rarely presumed to be intentional or are subject to punishment.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2018-October-01, 14:25, said:

I have struggled to find another sport or game where an infraction can gain, unless of course it is not noticed like deliberate handball in soccer! It is shameful that the Lawmakers have allowed this opportunity.

The rugby tackle in soccer where the penalty is a free kick 50 yards away from your goal instead of the player running through on goal. Last minute sending off who cares ? and often there will be a "covering defender" who would have had no chance of catching the much quicker striker.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-October-01, 16:24, said:

The rugby tackle in soccer where the penalty is a free kick 50 yards away from your goal instead of the player running through on goal. Last minute sending off who cares ? and often there will be a "covering defender" who would have had no chance of catching the much quicker striker.

Yes, a good point. And there are some who want the referee to be able to award a goal as well as a red card, so there IS indignation when someone gains from a deliberate infraction. In some sports, such as cricket, retrospective action is taken, illegally, when someone gains by "unsporting behaviour" even though it is completely legal. I think the difference in bridge is that a small change to Law 12B as suggested by pran would prevent the professional foul which could then never gain. Alternatively, TDs should decide that all infractions are deemed "deliberate" and adjust under 72C.

The Suarez save on the line in 2012 which helped Uruguay put out Ghana was a case of someone gaining from a deliberate infraction.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2018-October-01, 16:41, said:

Yes, a good point. And there are some who want the referee to be able to award a goal as well as a red card, so there IS indignation when someone gains from a deliberate infraction. In some sports, such as cricket, retrospective action is taken, illegally, when someone gains by "unsporting behaviour" even though it is completely legal. I think the difference in bridge is that a small change to Law 12B as suggested by pran would prevent the professional foul which could then never gain. Alternatively, TDs should decide that all infractions are deemed "deliberate" and adjust under 72C.

The Suarez save on the line in 2012 which helped Uruguay put out Ghana was a case of someone gaining from a deliberate infraction.

More likely something closer to the rugby rule, you award a penalty try when you're sure they'd have scored, but not when they might have done.

In bridge however you can award 0.7 of a goal if you think there was a 70% (or 60% if you feel like that) chance of them scoring

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-October-01, 17:00, said:

More likely something closer to the rugby rule, you award a penalty try when you're sure they'd have scored, but not when they might have done.

In bridge however you can award 0.7 of a goal if you think there was a 70% (or 60% if you feel like that) chance of them scoring

But in this thread you cannot award 100% of 3NT= even if you KNOW that there was a 100% of 3NT making without the infraction. At least the majority of people think you cannnot.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2018-October-01, 18:22, said:

But in this thread you cannot award 100% of 3NT= even if you KNOW that there was a 100% of 3NT making without the infraction. At least the majority of people think you cannnot.

Because it wasn't a "professional foul" it was precisely the opposite, an incompetent mistake that RR could not expect to work in his favour.

Also touches on another tangential area, I've seen the ruling (said nicer than this) that somebody was too incompetent/stupid to realise what they were doing and being allowed to get away with stuff a better/more experienced player would not.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-October-02, 05:17, said:

Also touches on another tangential area, I've seen the ruling (said nicer than this) that somebody was too incompetent/stupid to realise what they were doing and being allowed to get away with stuff a better/more experienced player would not.

My view is that "could have been aware" should not take into account the class of player, or it would have that clause, as it does in 16B. I am reminded of a remark by England's best player when asked by his partner if he could have made the contract. The reply was "No, you couldn't, but I would have claimed on the double squeeze."

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-October-01, 08:33, said:

In my opinion, whenever you commit an infraction, you could be aware that it could well damage the non-offending side, if it does do so.

This is why I think it's wrong to interpret the condition so liberally.

If a condition is virtually always true, what's the point of stating it as an explicit prerequisite? Just say that the consequence always occurs. I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-October-02, 09:28, said:

This is why I think it's wrong to interpret the condition so liberally.

If a condition is virtually always true, what's the point of stating it as an explicit prerequisite? Just say that the consequence always occurs. I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason.

There will be infractions which could not damage the NOS. For example, someone on lead in a suit in which he has pre-empted drops a second card below honour rank of that suit when leading it. That second card is a minor penalty card, but I cannot think of a way that could damage the NOS, although ChCh has been trying for several hours to think of a way.

If North places the board on the table in the wrong direction, rotated through 180° playing with a weak partner, and he ends up making 6NT on a vice squeeze, he obviously could be aware that the infraction would damage the NOS, however, even though he had no idea whether it would or not. I would punish that, and did punish it when called as TD once, on the basis that he could have seen that South was declarer at the previous table before the board was passed to him, and this is a standard ChCh ruse to play the majority of hands with RR.

If I buy a lottery ticket, I could win a million pounds or more. I am fully aware that this is possible; indeed my intent when I buy a ticket is to win, as well as to make a small donation to charity. I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating "could be aware" instead of "could reasonably be aware" for a reason. And that reason is that if there is ANY chance you were aware, you adjust. On that basis, Law 72C is fine as it stands. The test of whether an infraction could damage the NOS is then whether it did in a foreseeable way. If it did, the OS could have been aware that it would.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-October-03, 05:55, said:

There will be infractions which could not damage the NOS. For example, someone on lead in a suit in which he has pre-empted drops a second card below honour rank of that suit when leading it. That second card is a minor penalty card, but I cannot think of a way that could damage the NOS, although ChCh has been trying for several hours to think of a way.

What does that have to do with it? If it could not damage the NOS, and it doesn't damage the NOS, then obviously he couldn't have known it would damage the NOS.

So this is only relevant when there is damage, then we have to interpret the law that contains the "could have known" language. And I don't think we should interpret it as meaning that whenever there actually is damage, the player could have known it might happen. They would just have said that when there's damage, you adjust, without adding the "could have known" precondition.

Quote

If North places the board on the table in the wrong direction, rotated through 180° playing with a weak partner, and he ends up making 6NT on a vice squeeze, he obviously could be aware that the infraction would damage the NOS, however, even though he had no idea whether it would or not. I would punish that, and did punish it when called as TD once, on the basis that he could have seen that South was declarer at the previous table before the board was passed to him, and this is a standard ChCh ruse to play the majority of hands with RR.

This seems ridiculous. It could just as easily go the other way, making his partner declarer. When he makes the mistake, he could not possibly have known whether it will be favorable or unfavorable.

You're basically saying that you can never gain from an infraction, because you could have known that it would gain, and then we're supposed to adjust. I'm pretty sure the Laws are not supposed to be interpreted that way.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-October-03, 10:46, said:

This seems ridiculous. It could just as easily go the other way, making his partner declarer. When he makes the mistake, he could not possibly have known whether it will be favorable or unfavorable.

It could indeed go the other way, but the law does not say "is odds-on to damage the non-offending side". It says "could well damage the non offending side". The percentage of "could well" is not defined. Someone suggested 10% was reasonable, so all LOOTs, COOTs and IBs that are not already covered by the laws, automatically qualify. In the incident I ruled on at the North London club, I think the infraction was deliberate and the person who looked and behaved like ChCh put the board on the table wrongly because he had seen that South at the previous table had been declarer, that table was late finishing and his and RR's methods were similar to NS at the other table. The switch greatly increased the chance that ChCh would be declarer, and that worked in that a tough slam was reached, which ChCh made. I ruled this was a breach of Law 7A and "he could have been aware" that putting the board on the table with the wrong polarity "could well damage the non-offending side" and adjusted 6NT= to 6NT-1, the most likely result without the infraction. I judged that, even with his Guardian Angel, RR would not find the vice squeeze. And I did not need to accuse ChCh of cheating; I just used the catchall "could have been aware". How would you have ruled, out of interest?

I am not saying that you can never gain from an infraction. You can gain from one where it was not remotely possible to foresee how you might gain but I eventually find a construction where you do.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2018-October-03, 11:07, said:

It could indeed go the other way, but the law does not say "is odds-on to damage the non-offending side". It says "could well damage the non offending side". The percentage of "could well" is not defined. Someone suggested 10% was reasonable, so all LOOTs, COOTs and IBs that are not already covered by the laws, automatically qualify. In the incident I ruled on at the North London club, I think the infraction was deliberate and the person who looked and behaved like ChCh put the board on the table wrongly because he had seen that South at the previous table had been declarer, that table was late finishing and his and RR's methods were similar to NS at the other table. The switch greatly increased the chance that ChCh would be declarer, and that worked in that a tough slam was reached, which ChCh made. I ruled this was a breach of Law 7A and "he could have been aware" that putting the board on the table with the wrong polarity "could well damage the non-offending side" and adjusted 6NT= to 6NT-1, the most likely result without the infraction. I judged that, even with his Guardian Angel, RR would not find the vice squeeze. And I did not need to accuse ChCh of cheating; I just used the catchall "could have been aware". How would you have ruled, out of interest?

I am not saying that you can never gain from an infraction. You can gain from one where it was not remotely possible to foresee how you might gain but I eventually find a construction where you do.

Assuming that players have no prior knowledge of the board they are going to play, it’s impossible to know whether you will gain by placing the board in the wrong direction. Note, not “not remotely possible” but absolutely impossible, 100%. Besides, there is non real ground in the Laws for your take on this. I hope that you’re not directing the way you describe here, because you’re way out of line, certainly over here.