[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-September-29, 14:46, said:

"The objective of score adjustment" is just describing a general philosophy. It's not stating that a score adjustment should be made whenever damage exists.

Various laws then describe specific cases where adjustments should be made. That's when you take this "objective" into consideration.

It seems a very specific law to me. What is the point of saying when "damage exists" if TDs are not expected to adjust when it does? The objective is clearly stated: to put the NOS back in at least the same position as if the infraction had not occurred. If it was just a general philosophy it would be part of the introduction, along with the definitions of "may", "should", "must", etc.

More importantly, what is the logic of not adjusting when the NOS is damaged?

[pran]

pran, on 2018-September-29, 14:57, said:

Various laws include a "safety catch" for the possible situation that the rectification provided results in insufficient compensation for the damage to the non-offending side. (See for example Law 64C)

Law 12B2 explicitly forbids such adjustment whenever a law provides a specific rectification with no such "safety catch".
The situation in then that the rectification provided is "unduly severe to the non-offending side", possibly also "unduly advantageous to the offending side".

lamford, on 2018-September-29, 17:00, said:

No. Law 12B2 prevents the TD adjusting because the rectification is unduly severe or advantageous. Law 12B1 then allows an adjustment because the NOS gets a worse result than without the infraction. That is the "safety catch".

Law 12B1 does not allow the Director to award an adjusted score, this right is given the Director in Law 12A.

Law 12B1 only expresses in general terms how the Director shall decide the size of adjustment, and as already said: Law 12B2 explicitly forbids the Director "overriding" a specific rectification provided in the laws

(On a point of order: I do not agree with this law; I would have preferred law 12B2 to say: "...on the ground that the rectification is unduly severe to the offending side or unduly advantageous to the non-offending side")

[lamford]

pran, on 2018-September-30, 00:43, said:

(On a point of order: I do not agree with this law; I would have preferred law 12B2 to say: "...on the ground that the rectification is unduly severe to the offending side or unduly advantageous to the non-offending side")

I agree entirely. Also there is no justification for "could have been aware" in Law 73C. Any infraction "could well damage" the non-offending side. How and why may not be foreseeable.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2018-September-29, 09:04, said:

I think it is barmar who is attempting to dissect the difference between "because" and "arising from" which was never intended by the Lawmakers. I agree that none of the other laws allows an adjustment in this case. However Law 12B is very clearly written and does allow an adjustment. And how do you know what the Lawmakers intended?

How do you?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2018-September-29, 17:00, said:

No. Law 12B2 prevents the TD adjusting because the rectification is unduly severe or advantageous. Law 12B1 then allows an adjustment because the NOS gets a worse result than without the infraction. That is the "safety catch".

Seems to me that "worse result" here refers to the table result, not the result after director applies the appropriate rectification.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2018-September-30, 10:22, said:

Seems to me that "worse result" here refers to the table result, not the result after director applies the appropriate rectification.

(lamford wrote: "Law 12B1 then allows an adjustment because the NOS gets a worse result than without the infraction.")

"worse result" is not a question when a specific rectification is provided in the laws for an irregularity.
See my #42 above.

Once again:
Law 12B1 does not allow the Director to award an adjusted score, this right is given the Director in Law 12A.
Law 12B1 only expresses in general terms how the Director shall decide the size of adjustment, and (as already said):
Law 12B2 explicitly forbids the Director "overriding" a specific rectification provided in the laws

(The fact that I disagree with Law 12B2 is irrelevant here:)

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2018-September-30, 10:17, said:

How do you?

I don't - which is why I was interpreting it literally.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2018-September-30, 10:22, said:

Seems to me that "worse result" here refers to the table result, not the result after director applies the appropriate rectification.

That is inconsistent with the objective of score adjustment which is to remove any advantage gained by an infraction.

[jhenrikj]

First of all, 10C4 applies.: Subject to Law 16C2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to
make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit
through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 72C).


Second we know what the lawmakers intended since we have asked them and you are definitely not allowed to adjust on the basis of someone being lucky.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-September-29, 17:00, said:

No. Law 12B2 prevents the TD adjusting because the rectification is unduly severe or advantageous. Law 12B1 then allows an adjustment because the NOS gets a worse result than without the infraction. That is the "safety catch".

What's thd difference between being unduly advantageous to the offending side and not restoring equity?

Why would the Law on revokes need an explicit clause that says that the TD can adjust if the automatic transfer doesn't make up for the damage, if 12B1 already allows this?

Like I said before, "objective of score adjustment" is not a blanket authorization to adjust whenever there's damage. Rather, it's explaining that when a Law authorizes you to adjust, this is the objective you try to reach in deciding what to adjust to.

[lamford]

jhenrikj, on 2018-October-01, 01:23, said:

Second we know what the lawmakers intended since we have asked them and you are definitely not allowed to adjust on the basis of someone being lucky.[/size]

Is there a WBFLC minute which clarifies that if an infraction gains, but the player could not have foreseen how it would gain, then there is no adjustment?

[jhenrikj]

lamford, on 2018-October-01, 08:28, said:

Is there a WBFLC minute which clarifies that if an infraction gains, but the player could not have foreseen how it would gain, then there is no adjustment?

It's not the infraction that gains, it's subsequent actions. Those actions might be a consequence of the infraction but that is what 10C4 is about.

What you are saying is that for instance if my opponents get a MPC, and I choose one of my options and it turns out that another choosing another option might have worked out better I will be able to get an adjustment?

We do not need a WBFLC minute for everything. If the members of the WBFLC teach us something at international TD courses then that is how the law is supposed to be applied.

And also as other already has pointed out. Law 12B1 does not give you the right to adjust any score. Law 12A gives you the right to adjust the scores when either the law tells you to do that, or when there is no prescribed rectification for an infraction. If there is a prescribed rectification you have to follow that and that you are not allowed to adjust the score that follows as a result of that rectification, unless told so by a specific law. Law 64 is a perfect example on this. You give the penalty tricks under 64B, but you would not be allowed to adjust that score if 64C would not exist.

So before you apply 12B you have to check 1. Does the law tell me to give an adjusted score? In this case No. Is there a prescribed rectification. Yes. Are there any specific law that allows me to adjust after the rectification? No there is not.

Then no you simply are not allowed to adjust.

[sanst]

I’m wondering what lamford proposes. Something like “If the OS gains because of an infraction, even if the appropriate rectification has been applied, the TD should award an AS to redress the damage to the NOS”? That won’t work and would lead to double shots. An example: there is an OLOOT and the NOS chooses to let the best player of the two become declarer who forbids leading in the suit shown. Afterwards it’s clear that this is the only way that 3NT will go off. So lamford will award the NOS an AS because they made the wrong choice. That’s ridiculous. If you change the Laws in this way, you should have no choices as NOS, but let the TD decide afterwards whether you are damaged by the infraction and it’s compulsory rectification.

[pran]

jhenrikj, on 2018-October-02, 00:43, said:

It's not the infraction that gains, it's subsequent actions. Those actions might be a consequence of the infraction but that is what 10C4 is about.

What you are saying is that for instance if my opponents get a MPC, and I choose one of my options and it turns out that another choosing another option might have worked out better I will be able to get an adjustment?

We do not need a WBFLC minute for everything. If the members of the WBFLC teach us something at international TD courses then that is how the law is supposed to be applied.

And also as other already has pointed out. Law 12B1 does not give you the right to adjust any score. Law 12A gives you the right to adjust the scores when either the law tells you to do that, or when there is no prescribed rectification for an infraction. If there is a prescribed rectification you have to follow that and that you are not allowed to adjust the score that follows as a result of that rectification, unless told so by a specific law. Law 64 is a perfect example on this. You give the penalty tricks under 64B, but you would not be allowed to adjust that score if 64C would not exist.

So before you apply 12B you have to check 1. Does the law tell me to give an adjusted score? In this case No. Is there a prescribed rectification. Yes. Are there any specific law that allows me to adjust after the rectification? No there is not.

Then no you simply are not allowed to adjust.

In the youth of contract bridge (as the story goes) Ely Culbertson was asked and answered that the following action by declarer was according to the laws and therefore perfectly legal:

Declarer was in a 3NT contract which opponents could set directly from the opening lead. However, Declarer revoked (deliberately) and thereby established a stopper. He then made his contract with sufficient tricks to pay the prescribed revoke penalty for a final result of 3NT just made!

I believe that was what caused (the equivalent of) Law 64C to be inserted in the laws.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2018-October-02, 02:24, said:

An example: there is an OLOOT and the NOS chooses to let the best player of the two become declarer who forbids leading in the suit shown. Afterwards it’s clear that this is the only way that 3NT will go off. So lamford will award the NOS an AS because they made the wrong choice. That’s ridiculous. If you change the Laws in this way, you should have no choices as NOS, but let the TD decide afterwards whether you are damaged by the infraction and it’s compulsory rectification.

I don't think you can decide who plays the hand AND also forbid the suit shown, but it is indeed quite possible that the lead from the wrong hand would defeat the contract while it could not be beaten by the lead from the right hand. This is ridiculous as well. And, as in "retarded rabbit", none of the five options might be sufficient. If someone commits an infraction they "could be aware" that it "could well" damage the non-offending side; they don't need to know how, nor does the law require it. I am not suggesting changing the law. I am advocating TDs considering that when someone commits an infraction, and the laws do not provide sufficient rectification, they could be aware that it could well damage the non-offending side.

There has been a tendency in recent years to decrease the penalties for infractions, particularly BOOTs. This makes it more attractive to do them deliberately, but then nobody would cheat deliberately at bridge would they? After all it is only a game.

[weejonnie]

I might be in favour of changing "could be aware" to "could be reasonably aware". The trouble with 72C is that it is under "General Principles" and so is very wide ranging - as lamford has pointed out.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-October-02, 05:19, said:

I might be in favour of changing "could be aware" to "could be reasonably aware". The trouble with 72C is that it is under "General Principles" and so is very wide ranging - as lamford has pointed out.

If you also change 12B to "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe to the offending side or advantageous to the non-offending side." then I would agree. In the meantime, we should interpret "could be aware" literally.

[blackshoe]

jhenrikj, on 2018-October-02, 00:43, said:

If the members of the WBFLC teach us something at international TD courses then that is how the law is supposed to be applied.

Seems to me that unless a member of the WBFLC is acting in an official capacity as a member of the WBFLC, whatever he might say, write, or teach is his opinion only, and not official. Besides, what of those of us who are unable to attend these courses?

[axman]

pran, on 2018-October-02, 02:36, said:

In the youth of contract bridge (as the story goes) Ely Culbertson was asked and answered that the following action by declarer was according to the laws and therefore perfectly legal:

Declarer was in a 3NT contract which opponents could set directly from the opening lead. However, Declarer revoked (deliberately) and thereby established a stopper. He then made his contract with sufficient tricks to pay the prescribed revoke penalty for a final result of 3NT just made!

I believe that was what caused (the equivalent of) Law 64C to be inserted in the laws.

Actually, in 1933 this provision was present:

LAW No.39

Inquiries Regarding Possible Revoke

(a) Any player may question any other player as to whether his lead or play constitutes a revoke (except that Dummy may question only De­clarer), but the question or the answer made thereto shall not be deemed to have corrected a revoke otherwise established.
(b) Either adversary or Declarer (as the case may be) may demand that a correct card be substituted for the revoking card, in which case the offender is subject to the penalty for a corrected revoke, but not to the penalty for an established revoke.

It thus was possible to require the revoke to be corrected. what might be interesting is the effect of not correcting the revoke as required.... since not doing so would be an additional revoke:

LAW No.38

Revoke Penalties

(a) Corrected revoke by an adversary.
Penalty: Declarer may elect (1) to treat the card played in error as exposed, or (2) to require the offender to play his highest or lowest card of the suit led.
(b) Corrected revoke by Declarer.
Penalty: If the left-hand adversary has played after the revoke, he may require Declarer to play his highest or lowest card of the suit led; no penalty if the left-hand adversary has not played.
© Revoke by Dummy, whether corrected or established. No penalty.
(d) Established revoke by Declarer or an adversary.
Penalty: For the first revoke, two tricks won by the revoking side are surrendered to the other side; ‘for each subsequent revoke by the same side, one trick is so surrendered, except that no transfer of tricks shall include any trick won before the first revoke occurred, nor any trick transferred from the other side in payment of a previous revoke. Penalty tricks are scored exactly as though won in play.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2018-October-02, 05:10, said:

I don't think you can decide who plays the hand AND also forbid the suit shown as well

That’s exactly what SB did in Retarded Rabbit. Don’t tell me that he doesn’t think that he is the superior player. His ego seems to surpass that of a certain president on the other side of the pond, if that’s possible.