[blackshoe]

Yes.

[dburn]

bluejak, on Mar 28 2010, 07:14 PM, said:

I shall stick to my guns: giving an artificial adjusted score is illegal.

There are two situations where an artificial score replaces an assigned score.  Law 12C2A refers to where no result can be obtained but one was so this does not apply.

The other one, the new one, is Law 12C1D which allows someone who attempts to rule via Law 12C1C something to do instead of burst into tears if his mother decides he has been out too late trying to work out th possibilities.  However, since Law 12C1C does not apply in the ACBL there is no need to adopt this approach.  Since Law 12C1E, which does apply in the ACBL, refers to most favourable or unfavourable scores, multiple outcomes are not relevant.

Thus where a result has been obtained to give an artificial adjusted score is illegal in the ACBL.

I believe that there is (at least) one position in which an artificial score may replace a result actually obtained at the table.

Laws of Duplicate Bridge, on Law 12A3, said:

The Director may award an adjusted score if there has been an incorrect rectification of an irregularity.

That was not the case on this occasion, but it was the case where the players continued to play the board despite East's prior possession of unauthorized information from another table.

In general, I believe that a Director may say in effect that "if you had called me when you should have done [instead of incorrectly rectifying the irregularity yourselves], I would not have allowed this board to be played, so I will cancel the result you obtained on it and award an artificial adjusted score" (note that L12A3 does not restrict the Director in terms of the kind of adjusted score he may award).

[spw99]

bluejak, on Mar 28 2010, 07:14 PM, said:

The other one, the new one, is Law 12C1D which allows someone who attempts to rule via Law 12C1C something to do

I don't see anything in L12C1d that restricts it to cases involving L12C1c. Given the makeup of the WBFLC (concentration of ACBL representatives), my guess is that 12C1d was added specifically to legalize the too-frequent award of artificial scores in the ACBL.

Legal or not, giving an artificial score when a deal has been played is a terrible idea.

[spw99]

dburn, on Mar 28 2010, 02:25 PM, said:

In my view both East and West are a pair of complete nutters, but being a complete nutter is not in itself illegal and given their levels of sanity, their actions were not such as to deny them full redress for North's irregularity.

I agree that West is a nutter (both on the evidence at hand and other experience with this player), but I don't see why you form that opinion of East. What did he do that was nutty, other than agree to partner West?

Quote

1. With correct information, West might have passed 2H, which just makes.  NS +110.

[1] doesn't seem right; with correct information West would be more, not less likely to double 2♥ (given than he doubled it anyway). If North has majors, East is more likely than otherwise to take the double out into clubs, which would suit West fine.

Given West's nuttiness and his stated "reasoning" (in my Mar 22 post), I'm surprised you don't attach any weight to his statement that he might have passed 2H if given a correct explanation. Maybe you had to be there, but that looks "at all probable" to me.

Anyway, I'm encouraged that my view of the proper ruling is sane, even if not absolutely correct. Thanks to everyone for your responses.