[lamford]

---

A lively auction occurred on the above hand from the North London club on Tuesday, with MM opening a reasonable 4H as South despite her poor suit (an 8-bagger, pard), and the odds shifting on the second round for SB, North. He decided to gamble on his partner having the ace of hearts, but West's double suggested that he was probably wrong. However, RR was still to call and the hapless rabbit remembered something about the double of a slam showing one defensive trick and inviting his partner to bid on without a defensive trick himself.

While RR was thinking, the move was called and this table was way behind as the TD had had to deal with two revokes by RR in the same suit on the previous board. The North London club was heaving with 17 tables and a double-rover. HH, a full 18 stone of him, barged past the table and at this moment West, ChCh, dropped the ace of hearts. Of course he claimed that it was jostled from his grip, but previous misdemeanours made OO, who was called, suspicious. "I am not sure if this fulfils the requirement of 'because of a player's own error' in Law 24, but I am going to treat it as a card exposed during the auction, and an MPC, and RR is silenced, but only for one round", he ruled. RR passed, perforce, as did MM. "Please play on as the auction has now ended," concluded OO. SB, North, was furious, as he thought that RR might well have bid 7S here, even after seeing the ace of hearts.

He called OO back at the end of the play and wanted an adjustment, but OO quoted at him 12B2:
"The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side." I think this is just rub of the green. There was a rectification, RR's enforced pass, so that is it.

OO continued: "So, RR's enforced pass did potentially damage the NOS, but I cannot find any grounds for adjustment unless I think that ChCh deliberately dropped the A♥ when I might adjust under 72C. To claim that would expose me to a libel action - and he has much more money than me." 12B1 is possible, but the WBFLC doesn't think that means what it says.

How do you rule?

[barmar]

As I said in the other thread, we have to determine whether this poor result was because of the infraction, rather than merely enabled by it.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-September-28, 07:04, said:

As I said in the other thread, we have to determine whether this poor result was because of the infraction, rather than merely enabled by it.

I don't think the linguistic approach is necessary. There is so much poor phrasing in the Laws anyway, that we should just apply the test "Did the NOS get a better result than they would have had if the infraction had not occurred." In my opinion "because of an infraction" distinguishes it from "because of good legal bidding or play".

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-September-28, 07:17, said:

In my opinion "because of an infraction" distinguishes it from "because of good legal bidding or play".

And my opinion is that it also distinguishes it from "because of good luck".

[weejonnie]

You can't say that this was "not own error" and then apply 'card exposed under the auction" since one interpretation of the laws is that the statements about what to do assume that the card was exposed as a result of "own error".

Thus the card is picked up and there is no rectification under law 72C.

BUT

I think we can apply law 16D1 (UI from extraneous sources) since the examples given are not exhaustive (yes I know the example of exposure of a card before the auction is mentioned). The director should therefore allow play to continue ready to award an adjusted score since the extraneous information affected the result.

Since neither side is offending (depsite ChCh reputation) the director awards doubtful points in favour of each side.

So: For ChCh we award the score for 7♥X -1
And: For SB we award a score of 50% for 7♥X -1 and 50% for 7♠X -2 (This assumes that #doubtful# means "will RR bid 7♠ a quarter of the time or half the time" rather than 'since RR might have bid 7♠ we must assume he always will'.)

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2018-September-28, 08:41, said:

And: For SB we award a score of 50% for 7♥X -1 and 50% for 7♠X -2 (This assumes that #doubtful# means "will RR bid 7♠ a quarter of the time or half the time" rather than 'since RR might have bid 7♠ we must assume he always will'.)

But say the drop of the Ace was his own error, what do we award?

[weejonnie]

pescetom, on 2018-September-28, 09:47, said:

But say the drop of the Ace was his own error, what do we award?

We apply Law 24 - and Law 72C. So we award an adjusted score (the latter one).

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-September-28, 08:41, said:

You can't say that this was "not own error" and then apply 'card exposed under the auction" since one interpretation of the laws is that the statements about what to do assume that the card was exposed as a result of "own error".

I suggest you re-read the OP. OO, who is responsible for deciding on the facts, was "not sure if this fulfils the requirement of 'because of a player's own error' in Law 24" but he DID designated the ace of hearts as an MPC. For what it is worth, I think OO was correct, as the player could have held his hand more firmly, after the move was called in a busy room, so that a card could not be jolted loose. Under 85A1, he should and did apply:
"In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." The decision that it was an MPC did not suggest for one moment that ChCh cheated, but it did mean that RR had to pass.

16D1 is for unauthorised information from another source - such as a card faced when the board arrives from another table. That has nothing to do with the present situation, so your proposed ruling is wrong. And Law 16 does not apply to RR's enforced pass in any case. One cannot be accused of using UI when told by the TD to pass at your next turn! If you apply 72C then you are saying that ChCh could have dropped the AH deliberately, and OO did not so decide, nor does it fit the facts.

The only way the TD can adjust, and indeed I think should adjust, is because the NOS obtained a worse result than had the infraction not occurred. But not many TDs would do this. And as for barmar's nonsense that the bad result was not "because" of the infraction, I had an argument with my insurance company recently:

I parked my Lamborghini outside the betting shop and rushed in to put on a bet, leaving the keys in the ignition. The car was stolen, but the insurance company would not pay out because they said the theft occurred because I had left the keys in the ignition. I argued that this had merely "enabled" the theft, but the Insurance Ombudsman has now ruled that the insurers are right and the loss was because I had left the keys in the car.

[weejonnie]

However, I think that our main disagreement is whether the chimp dropping the card is 'his own error'. You think it is, I do not.

16D1 is 'extraneous information' - the information came courtesy of HH who most certainly was extraneous to the four players at the table. I am basically trying to use the law to produce an equitable result. The chimp has form, of course. On a previous session Molly was being pseudo-squeezed when the Chimp 'accidentally' dropped a card to let MM know declarer had no entry to the long suit in dummy.

I certainly agree that the NOS (SB) got a worse result than they might have - however I am arguing that ChCh (for once) is also a NOS.

In real law there is a test of forseeability - could ChCh forsee that someone in a bridge club would bang against him sufficiently hard that his normally firm grip would be relaxed due to the shock.

At least he didn't bang down the double card to tell his partner "DOn't take this out" - which I have seen happen.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-September-29, 16:09, said:

However, I think that our main disagreement is whether the chimp dropping the card is 'his own error'. You think it is, I do not.

It is irrelevant whether you or I think the chimp dropping the AH was his own error. The TD ruled that it was: "When the Director determines that during the auction, because of a player’s own error, one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be placed face up on the table until the auction ends." So, we rule from there, and your idea that there is UI from another source is irrelevant. We have to rule after the director's finding that there is an MPC.

Where we agree is that ChCh probably cheated. And where we disagree is that I (and very few others) think the TD can use 12B1 to adjust.

[weejonnie]

I have decided that the ruling should initially be 100% in favour of SB, but since OO has ruled differently, the ruling should be split taking both sides as non-offenders.

Law 24 (which OO has applied) states that

When the Director determines that during the auction, because of a player’s own error, one or
more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the
Director shall require that every such card be placed face up on the table until the auction ends.
Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non‐offending side but unauthorized
for the offending side (see Law 16C).

Note that this is different from a MPC (where the information is authorised for both sides, but the OS is adjusted if they gain from such information)

Thus RR must carefully avoid taking advantage of knowledge of the Ace of Hearts - if we decide that bidding 7 Spades is a logical alternative for RRs (how do we poll this? there is only 1 RR (unless you call TT and WW, members of the same class)) then the ruling has to be 7 Spades X -1 and/ or 7 Spades X -2.

Obviously OO hasn't taken this into account - hence director's error : ChCh is given 7♥X -1 and SB as above.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-September-30, 03:26, said:

I have decided that the ruling should initially be 100% in favour of SB, but since OO has ruled differently, the ruling should be split taking both sides as non-offenders.

Law 24 (which OO has applied) states that

When the Director determines that during the auction, because of a player’s own error, one or
more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the
Director shall require that every such card be placed face up on the table until the auction ends.
Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non‐offending side but unauthorized
for the offending side (see Law 16C).

Note that this is different from a MPC (where the information is authorised for both sides, but the OS is adjusted if they gain from such information)

Thus RR must carefully avoid taking advantage of knowledge of the Ace of Hearts - if we decide that bidding 7 Spades is a logical alternative for RRs (how do we poll this? there is only 1 RR (unless you call TT and WW, members of the same class)) then the ruling has to be 7 Spades X -1 and/ or 7 Spades X -2.

Obviously OO hasn't taken this into account - hence director's error : ChCh is given 7♥X -1 and SB as above.

I don't know very much about the Laws of Bridge, but it seems to me that someone who is forced to pass cannot "carefully avoid taking advantage of the knowledge of the ace of hearts". Once the TD has ruled that the card is placed face up (with which we agree), you must then force RR to pass, so he cannot carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI. You can adjust under 72C, but only if you decide that ChCh could have been aware. To be aware requires a decision to drop the AH, rather than carelessness in not holding it firmly, or so OO ruled. I don't think you should overrule the TD on a finding of fact.

And MM should have redoubled, and this would have "brought the rabbit back to life" if that is possible. Then I think RR has to save in 7S. 100% of the time as it is an LA and passing is demonstrably suggested.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-September-29, 16:52, said:

It is irrelevant whether you or I think the chimp dropping the AH was his own error. The TD ruled that it was

Unless we decide that the TD was wrong, so this is actually Director Error.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-October-01, 08:10, said:

Unless we decide that the TD was wrong, so this is actually Director Error.

In ACs on which I have served over the years, we were told that the gathering of facts, and aspects of law and regulation such as (but not limited to) the decision that the AH was an MPC, were decided by the TD, and it would be wrong to overturn these. However, we can challenge the TD's determination that West "could not have known" that dropping the AH might benefit his side I would be quite happy to do so, as I think this board should be adjusted.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2018-October-01, 09:08, said:

I would be quite happy to do so, as I think this board should be adjusted.

It is my understanding that Kaplan used to say "decide what ruling you wish to make, and then find a law to support it." It is also my understanding that this approach is now deprecated.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2018-October-01, 09:14, said:

It is my understanding that Kaplan used to say "decide what ruling you wish to make, and then find a law to support it." It is also my understanding that this approach is now deprecated.

Wasn't that the approach the Supreme Court used when declaring Obamacare's individual mandate constitutional (they decided that the penalty is actually a tax, and the government has the authority to levy taxes). If it's good enough for SCOTUS, it's should be good enough for us.

If the lawmakers want to prevent this approach, the solution is to writer clearer laws without inconsistencies, so TDs can't cherry-pick the law that supports their ruling.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2018-October-02, 09:12, said:

If the lawmakers want to prevent this approach, the solution is to writer clearer laws without inconsistencies, so TDs can't cherry-pick the law that supports their ruling.

Or they can say that the approach is deprecated. Which, iirc, they did.

[sanst]

barmar, on 2018-October-02, 09:12, said:

If the lawmakers want to prevent this approach, the solution is to writer clearer laws without inconsistencies, so TDs can't cherry-pick the law that supports their ruling.

That’s impossible. It’s impossible for a formal axiomatic system, as shown by Gödel, so it’s certainly impossible for a semi-formal, non-axiomatic system like the Laws of Dulicate Bridge or any other set of laws. US states have sovereignty, but can’t declare themselves independent. A very bloody Civil War was fought to make that clear.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2018-October-09, 01:20, said:

That’s impossible. It’s impossible for a formal axiomatic system, as shown by Gödel, so it’s certainly impossible for a semi-formal, non-axiomatic system like the Laws of Dulicate Bridge or any other set of laws. US states have sovereignty, but can’t declare themselves independent. A very bloody Civil War was fought to make that clear.

I think Gödel would have argued that the Laws were necessarily incomplete, but it should be possible to have a set of axioms which allow you to rule on all occurrences at the bridge table. It would be logical to have, for example, 12A1 to read:
The Director may award an adjusted score in favour of a non-offending contestant when he judges that these Laws do not prescribe a sufficient rectification for the particular type of violation committed. Instead the powers that be illogically fudge this issue by saying that you can only increase the penalty when the offender could have known his infraction would damage the non-offenders.

[barmar]

sanst, on 2018-October-09, 01:20, said:

That’s impossible. It’s impossible for a formal axiomatic system, as shown by Gödel, so it’s certainly impossible for a semi-formal, non-axiomatic system like the Laws of Dulicate Bridge or any other set of laws. US states have sovereignty, but can’t declare themselves independent. A very bloody Civil War was fought to make that clear.

Gödel's theorem applies to fully general systems, it's not necessarily the case for more limited systems. However, it's also the case that human language is inherently imprecise, and most words have multiple meanings, so there's a limit to how well we can write laws in our languages.

But we can certainly do better than we have, to minimize the windows for unwanted interpretations.