[pran]

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

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

My own memory from many (some 30?) years ago.

Others may have better memory; as far as I can remember there had been a controversial ruling in UK where involved players wanted to press charges on an allegation of slander because (as they claimed) they had been accused of cheating.

We were told at some convention here in Norway that the "could have known" clause was subsequently added just for that reason.

[lamford]

pran, on 2016-May-18, 11:35, said:

My own memory from many (some 30?) years ago.

Others may have better memory; as far as I can remember there had been a controversial ruling in UK where involved players wanted to press charges on an allegation of slander because (as they claimed) they had been accused of cheating.

We were told at some convention here in Norway that the "could have known" clause was subsequently added just for that reason.

Is that the one where some Americans thought that some British player could have been aware how many hearts his partner held?

[pran]

lamford, on 2016-May-18, 11:37, said:

Is that the one where some Americans thought that some British player could have been aware how many hearts his partner held?

I don't remember and I don't care.
IMHO the history itself is irrelevant.
What is important is that the word "cheat" cannot be found in the laws. (I just did a search!)

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-May-18, 11:15, said:

If the TD is satisified that an action was "involuntary", it fails the "could have been aware" test.

"If and only if"?

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2016-May-18, 11:35, said:

My own memory from many (some 30?) years ago.

Others may have better memory; as far as I can remember there had been a controversial ruling in UK where involved players wanted to press charges on an allegation of slander because (as they claimed) they had been accused of cheating.

We were told at some convention here in Norway that the "could have known" clause was subsequently added just for that reason.

This makes sense, and seems to favour Paul's interpretation rather than Gordon's.

In any case, how do we rule when A. Player would certainly be aware, but the player is question is not known to ever be aware of anything?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2016-May-18, 13:30, said:

"If and only if"?

I think lamford's "however remote" is a bit of an overbid. Suppose partner passes and you pass. I would apply L23 if you had a weak NT. I would not apply it if you had a 2♣ opener.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-May-18, 13:30, said:

"If and only if"?

If the TD judges, on the balance of probabilities, according to the principles in Law 85A1, that the person could have been aware. If someone bids out of turn, they always "could have been aware".

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-May-18, 16:22, said:

If the TD judges, on the balance of probabilities, according to the principles in Law 85A1, that the person could have been aware. If someone bids out of turn, they always "could have been aware".

And we're back to "could have known" is the same as "did know".

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-May-18, 17:04, said:

And we're back to "could have known" is the same as "did know".

Certainly not.
The point with "could have known" is that there is no need to show he (probably) did know.

I agree that a clearly unintended violation of law very unlikely can qualify for the "could have known" clause, but I shall not entirely dismiss the possibility.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2016-May-18, 11:15, said:

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

I think a modicum of common sense has to be applied when reading the laws. If you allow any remote possibility, you can be aware of almost anything, so practically nothing is excluded by that requirement. Then if one of those remote possibilities arises, you throw the book at them.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-May-19, 09:13, said:

I think a modicum of common sense has to be applied when reading the laws. If you allow any remote possibility, you can be aware of almost anything, so practically nothing is excluded by that requirement. Then if one of those remote possibilities arises, you throw the book at them.

I agree. However, whenever somebody is careless or inattentive, they "could have been aware". "Dropping" the ace of trumps for example. Note that Law 23 does not require them to guess exactly how they would benefit, but that they might. If someone does something "inadvertent" then I would rule that they could not have been aware. Of course the TD has to decide whether it was inadvertent or whether it might not have been. All bids out of turn, leads out of turn and plays out of turn are not "inadvertent". The cheat careless person could think, "Oppo seem to know what they are doing. I will try to throw a spanner in the works." They could have been aware that the infraction could well work to their advantage.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2016-May-19, 18:55, said:

I agree. However, whenever somebody is careless or inattentive, they "could have been aware". "Dropping" the ace of trumps for example. Note that Law 23 does not require them to guess exactly how they would benefit, but that they might. If someone does something "inadvertent" then I would rule that they could not have been aware. Of course the TD has to decide whether it was inadvertent or whether it might not have been. All bids out of turn, leads out of turn and plays out of turn are not "inadvertent". The cheat careless person could think, "Oppo seem to know what they are doing. I will try to throw a spanner in the works." They could have been aware that the infraction could well work to their advantage.

If one accepted that every player who commits an infraction of carelessness or inattentiveness "could have been aware" (which, as you know, I do not), you still have to satisfy the second part of the condition, "that this could well damage the non-offending side" (my emphasis). You and I have disagreed before about how high a bar this sets, but I do not think that every infraction meets it, which would be necessary for your argument.

[blackshoe]

I'm with Gordon here.

[gordontd]

Interesting discussion about this on BLML at the moment.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2016-May-20, 01:53, said:

If one accepted that every player who commits an infraction of carelessness or inattentiveness "could have been aware" (which, as you know, I do not), you still have to satisfy the second part of the condition, "that this could well damage the non-offending side" (my emphasis). You and I have disagreed before about how high a bar this sets, but I do not think that every infraction meets it, which would be necessary for your argument.

Indeed; I recall you thinking "could well" meant with a probability far more than I consider it. If you had said that "Leicester could well win the Premiership this season" in July 2015, I would have agreed; but then I would have agreed whichever team you named. "could have been aware" and "could well" are undefined in the Laws. We therefore fall back on dictionary definitions:

"Could is used as the past tense of can when it means that someone had the ability to do something, or that something was possible"

The adverb "well" in the second half has many meanings. I quite like the one given to it on a Laws site:
"So, to summarize, adding "well" after "could" or "might" says that there is some reason why the probability is increased beyond normal statistical levels, and it implies that this probability has become large enough that the possibility of the event has become worth considering."

Another thing about Law 23 is that it says:
Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed).

This is more drivel from the WBFLC of course, as the TD requires the auction and play to continue whether or not he thought the offender "could have been aware". Law 23 should read, and you could "move the bar" if that was the majority opinion:

LAW 23: AWARENESS OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE
Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, there was any possibility that an offender was aware at the time of his irregularity that there was more than a remote chance that this would damage the non-offending side, when the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

[pran]

lamford, on 2016-May-21, 15:39, said:

Law 23:
Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed).

This expression contains 40 words.

lamford, on 2016-May-21, 15:39, said:

Your proposal for LAW 23:
Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, there was any possibility that an offender was aware at the time of his irregularity that there was more than a remote chance that this would damage the non-offending side, when the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

This expression contains 63 words.

I remember having seen somewhere a claim that increasing the number of words for the same meaning in an expression reduces the clarity of the expression by roughly the square of the increase. (Doubling the number of words reduces the clarity by a factor of four.)

40/63 squared is ca. 0,4. Can you agree that your proposal appears only about 40% as clear as the present law while essentially saying the same?

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-May-21, 15:39, said:

"Could is used as the past tense of can when it means that someone had the ability to do something, or that something was possible"

Could in this contest is not the past tense but the conditional and means "would be able to". I would suggest a reasonable definition of could well is "is reasonably likely to" but that is more difficult to pin down precisely.

[lamford]

pran, on 2016-May-21, 16:37, said:

This expression contains 40 words.

This expression contains 63 words.

I remember having seen somewhere a claim that increasing the number of words for the same meaning in an expression reduces the clarity of the expression by roughly the square of the increase. (Doubling the number of words reduces the clarity by a factor of four.)

40/63 squared is ca. 0,4. Can you agree that your proposal appears only about 40% as clear as the present law while essentially saying the same?

The current Law contains 65 words:
Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed).When the
play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

My version contained 63 words, so your point is invalid. But I am glad you agree that they say essentially the same thing. That was the intention.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-21, 17:38, said:

Could in this contest is not the past tense but the conditional and means "would be able to". I would suggest a reasonable definition of could well is "is reasonably likely to" but that is more difficult to pin down precisely.

"is reasonably likely to" is indeed the way Law 23 is interpreted. So one can gain from an infraction, even if was deliberate (usually impossible to prove), provided it was judged you could not have been aware how you would gain.

If the Lawmakers intended that, they should have written:
<snip> "is reasonably likely to have been aware" or "is reasonably likely to damage the non-offfending side", whichever they intended, rather than the absolute "could have been aware" and the less clear "could well damage".

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-May-21, 19:06, said:

"is reasonably likely to" is indeed the way Law 23 is interpreted. So one can gain from an infraction, even if was deliberate (usually impossible to prove), provided it was judged you could not have been aware how you would gain.

If the Lawmakers intended that, they should have written:
<snip> "is reasonably likely to have been aware" or "is reasonably likely to damage the non-offfending side", whichever they intended, rather than the absolute "could have been aware" and the less clear "could well damage".

Is "is reasonably likely to damage" clearer than "could well damage"? Both are subjective measures and the latter is more concise. By my reading of the pure English, you are correct for the first clause and Gordon correct for the second. What is really meant by the lawmakers is something only they themselves can explain.