[RMB1]

Law 12B1

Quote

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

I am worried about the word "because" : should we still be concerned about consequent damage when deciding whether to adjust for the offending side.

Basic example: NS bid to 4H, there is UI and EW bid 4S (an infraction of Law 16). NS make a serious error (say a revoke) in defending 4S and score less than they would in 4H. Without the serious error, NS would score more defending 4S than declaring 4H.

Does "damage exist" in the sense of Law 12B1? To me the word "because" suggests there is not damage, the less favourable score is not because of the infraction. If the law read "following" instead of "because of" then I would have no trouble in saying damage exists. Does this mean there should be no adjustment for the offending side in the example?

Perhaps the phrase "to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction" does not require damage to exist. Is it this phrase than means we adjust for the offending side?

(In the previous thread, I explain that we do not adjust for the non-offending side when the damage is all self-inflicted, under Law 12C1b.)

Robin

[bluejak]

To be honest I do not see your difficulty, so perhaps a clarification would help. If an offending side gets a better score than they would if the infraction had not occurred, then that is because of the infraction, yes? The fact that there are also other reasons apart from the infraction does not stop it being because of the infraction.

[axman]

bluejak, on Oct 17 2009, 05:30 PM, said:

To be honest I do not see your difficulty, so perhaps a clarification would help.  If an offending side gets a better score than they would if the infraction had not occurred, then that is because of the infraction, yes?  The fact that there are also other reasons apart from the infraction does not stop it being because of the infraction.

Given that premise, it does not follow that

' then that is because of the infraction, yes? '

While, a score smaller than the expectation can be the consequence of an infraction, it might otherwise be a consequnce of poor choices of one or more players, or brilliant choices of one or more players.

Law 12B1
QUOTE
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



I have been unable to parse this passage so as to be comprehensible. I am not sure that it is connected to the use of 'because'. However, the comparison of expectation to outcome [rather than to expected outcome] does have somethng to do with it.

For what it is worth the expectation absent the ?infraction? was 680 while the expectation as a consequence of the ?infraction? was 800.

[bluejak]

Nothing was said about an expectation after the infraction. Well, you did, but I do not think it relevant, because the Law does not.

[jallerton]

RMB1, on Oct 17 2009, 04:43 PM, said:

Does "damage exist" in the sense of Law 12B1?  To me the word "because" suggests there is not damage, the less favourable score is not because of the infraction.  If the law read "following" instead of "because of" then I would have no trouble in saying damage exists.  Does this mean there should be no adjustment for the offending side in the example?

In your scenario, in order for the innocent side to "obtain a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred", two things needed to happen:

(i) the infraction; and
(ii) the revoke defending the illegally reached contract.

Therefore the damage is "because" of (i) and "because" of (ii).

Hence the "because of an infraction" condition of Law 12B1 is satisfied.

Let me ask a question as well:

Does the WBF Code of Practice (issued whilst the 1997 Laws were in operation) still have any legal force?

WBF Code of Practice said:

Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction.

If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by irrational, wild or gamblingaction, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted.
The offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction. A revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without regard to the revoke.

The wording to define damage is slightly different: I'm not sure if it is intended to mean something different in the 2007 Laws or not. However, the example would seem to answer Robin's question, if the Code of Practice is still valid today.

[barmar]

I don't think the wording in the WBF code is intended to have a different connotation. My dictionary defines "consequence" as "a result or effect of an action or condition"; I believe that "A is because of B" is equivalent to "A is a consequence of B".

The rest of the quoted code is intended to define and prohibit the infamous "double shot". An infraction by the opponents doesn't give you free rein, on the theory that you can't do any worse than you would have had the infraction not occurred.

But as long as you don't go wild, the offending side shouldn't get an advantage from their infraction.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on Oct 18 2009, 10:56 AM, said:

Does the WBF Code of Practice (issued whilst the 1997 Laws were in operation) still have any legal force?

Surely it has never had any legal force except in events where it was explicitly stated to be part of the regulations?

It appears that it does still apply to WBF events, since it says so on the WBF website, and was last revised a year ago:

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/app...eofpractice.asp