[MFA]

blackshoe, on Sep 18 2009, 07:14 PM, said:

MFA, on Sep 18 2009, 12:45 PM, said:

To get a compensation afterwards, however, the laws require the player to be innocent (Law 12B1).

Law 12B1 said:

The objective of a 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 favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1{b} below.

Law 12C1{b} said:

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

I think that it is the word "innocent" which directs the law to 12C1{b}, and in particular that in order to be deemed "not innocent" a contestant has to commit a serious error, or take a wild or gambling action. Which of these has our putative player done in not asking for clarification?

I disagree that this is the logical interpretation of 12B1.

Innocent is part of the definition of damage, and an independent condition for using 12B1 at all.

12C1b is about the non-offending side adding to the damage by their own 'bad' play. This additional damage will not get compensated.
This doesn't mean that 12C1b defines or has anything to do with the term innocent.
(In fact it would be logical inconsistent to talk about part of damage in 12C1b, if 12C1b were the definition of innocent. Since there is no damage if the party is not innocent according to definition!)

The reference in 12B1 to 12C1b is solely for convenience so that the TD doesn't forget to take this into consideration.

[blackshoe]

This is what comes of using many words where one will do.

You seem to be saying that the player who does not ask when he sees a discrepancy between what he reads on the system card and the alert (or lack thereof) he hears at the table contributes in some manner to the offense (which is the opponents' putative failure to properly disclose their methods). And that having contributed to it, he is no longer entitled to redress for damage, because the fact he contributed to the problem negates any damage that may have occurred.

If that's what you're saying, I don't buy it.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on Sep 18 2009, 01:49 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 18 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

You're missing my point, Aqua. Asking for partner's benefit is illegal (Law 73B1).

Duh, of course it is. You are a hard person to agree with, even when I quote you and say pretty much the same thing --that partner's benefit is a byproduct and clarification is the real reason for asking. Whether I know that byproduct might occur should not be a consideration.

I've reread your post. I still don't get a sense that you were agreeing with me, but if you say you are, okay.

[MFA]

blackshoe, on Sep 18 2009, 09:12 PM, said:

This is what comes of using many words where one will do.

You seem to be saying that the player who does not ask when he sees a discrepancy between what he reads on the system card and the alert (or lack thereof) he hears at the table contributes in some manner to the offense (which is the opponents' putative failure to properly disclose their methods). And that having contributed to it, he is no longer entitled to redress for damage, because the fact he contributed to the problem negates any damage that may have occurred.

If that's what you're saying, I don't buy it.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Since he realizes the inconsistency before making his bid, he must ask if he wants protection. If he decides to guess for himself between the meanings (choice 3 or 4 above), he is on his own.

The laws only protect innocent players. If you don't 'buy' my views then so be it.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Sep 18 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

You're missing my point, Aqua. Asking for partner's benefit is illegal (Law 73B1).

Asking only for partner's benefit is illegal. Resolving an ambiguity between the CC and the (lack of) alert for yourself is legal; if it also benefits partner, that's OK, too.

The only potential problem I can see is a possible UI problem. Suppose partner has forgotten that 2♣ has a different meaning depending on whether 1♣ could be short. Your asking the question could wake him up about this. But if you go this route, your hands would be tied way too much; you can't worry all the time that this might be the moment that partner has forgotten something. And even if it does cause UI, that's not your problem, it's his; if he knows his ethical responsibility, and realizes that the question reminded him, he'll continue bidding as if he'd forgotten. (Good luck finding a partner who is both so ethical and so self-aware.)

[bluejak]

Up to a point, a player is expected to protect himself. Where the point is depends on many things, like the level of competition, the level of the player, regulations such as the one I quoted, and so on. A player will not get redress if it is felt that the primary reason for his bad score is his failure to adequately protect himself, because then it is felt the damage is consequent on that lack of self-protection rather than on the infraction.