[pran]

campboy, on 2014-August-14, 04:00, said:

pran, on 2014-August-14, 03:27, said:

What result do you consider "normal" as rectification for the bid out of turn by South once North (incorrectly) bid on, assuming that the Director had not erred?
(And please do not avoid the question by quoting Laws 9, 10 and/or 11!)

Irrelevant. The word "normal" does not appear in law 12C2 so the result obtained does not need to be normal.

Normal or not normal: What adjusted score do you award?

campboy, on 2014-August-14, 04:00, said:

pran, on 2014-August-14, 03:27, said:

And BTW: while Law 12A3 does not specify "artificial adjusted score" nor does it specify "assigned adjusted score", the Director may award either under this Law.

Not true. Law 12C1A: "When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so."

And what adjusted score do you award?

[pran]

campboy, on 2014-August-13, 11:00, said:

NS are to be treated as non-offending. I don't think that is compatible with giving them an adjustment that is less than the result they actually obtained.

lamford, on 2014-August-14, 04:49, said:

I can't agree with this. If the director had ruled something like "Ah, yes, an opening bid out of turn, I think I know that one. The board is immediately scored using the par Deep Finesse score, and I see that is +140 for NS. Please enter that and play the next board." On your basis, you would give NS that (or 60% whichever is the greater), and EW 60%. And say that you swap East's two of clubs with South's two of diamonds. Now the par Deep Finesse NS score is +420 (the play is interesting for those that care) and now you would allow NS that score, as the director had given them that score erroneously!

Precisely!

The point is that Law 82C instructs the Director to judge whether he considers himself able to assess what would (probably) have happened if he had not failed in his ruling. If so he shall award an assigned adjusted score accordingly, if not he shall award an artificial adjusted score treating both sides as non-offending.

But in either case the table result obtained following the Director's error is as such void.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-August-14, 04:49, said:

I can't agree with this. If the director had ruled something like "Ah, yes, an opening bid out of turn, I think I know that one. The board is immediately scored using the par Deep Finesse score, and I see that is +140 for NS. Please enter that and play the next board." On your basis, you would give NS that (or 60% whichever is the greater), and EW 60%. And say that you swap East's two of clubs with South's two of diamonds. Now the par Deep Finesse NS score is +420 (the play is interesting for those that care) and now you would allow NS that score, as the director had given them that score erroneously!

I don't consider the TD making up a number and putting it in the bridgemate to constitute "obtaining a result". But when a contract is reached by an auction, and then 13 tricks of that contract are played out, and then the score for declarer taking the number of tricks he made in that contract is correctly calculated, a result has been obtained.

[campboy]

pran, on 2014-August-14, 06:29, said:

And what adjusted score do you award?

To NS, table result. To EW, I would consider what results might have been obtained without the TD error, and assign an appropriate weighted score.

[pran]

campboy, on 2014-August-14, 07:05, said:

To NS, table result. To EW, I would consider what results might have been obtained without the TD error, and assign an appropriate weighted score.

I specifically asked you:
What result do you consider "normal" as rectification for the bid out of turn by South once North (incorrectly) bid on, assuming that the Director had not erred? In that situation NS is the (only) offending side.

And you have probably overlooked that while the word "normal" does not occur in Law 12C2 it does indeed occur in Law 12A2. This Law is relevant for the Director's authority to award adjusted scores.

But it was interesting to see Your ruling, I shall be very anxious to see your comment in the other thread on Director's error just started by Lamford.

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2014-August-14, 07:35, said:

I specifically asked you:
What result do you consider "normal" as rectification for the bid out of turn by South once North (incorrectly) bid on, assuming that the Director had not erred? In that situation NS is the (only) offending side.

I can't answer for campboy, of course, but speaking personally if the TD doesn't err I don't consider any result as normal as rectification for the bid out of turn, I consider an auction with restrictions imposed as normal rectification, leading to whatever result might happen.

[campboy]

pran, on 2014-August-14, 07:35, said:

I specifically asked you:
What result do you consider "normal" as rectification for the bid out of turn by South once North (incorrectly) bid on, assuming that the Director had not erred? In that situation NS is the (only) offending side.

And you have probably overlooked that while the word "normal" does not occur in Law 12C2 it does indeed occur in Law 12A2. This Law is relevant for the Director's authority to award adjusted scores.

But it was interesting to see Your ruling, I shall be very anxious to see your comment in the other thread on Director's error just started by Lamford.

I haven't overlooked that. Law 12A2 talks about whether you can make a rectification that will permit normal play of the board. Therefore it applies in the case when the board has not yet been completed. If the TD had discovered his error halfway through the auction then he might, for example, have cancelled the board at that point on the grounds that it was too late to rectify the board in such a way as to permit normal play.

I can't be bothered to think about what might have happened if the TD had not made his error. But what I would do if required to give a ruling would be to think about it, and assign a score on that basis to EW.

[lamford]

WellSpyder, on 2014-August-14, 09:03, said:

<snip> I don't consider any result as normal as rectification for the bid out of turn

I think there could be an example, but not this one. "Normal" in this context would seem to mean "typical" or "expected". If the auction would be identical with the wrong ruling and with the right ruling, then that would qualify as normal. Otherwise, the board is fouled by director error.