[VixTD]

lamford, on 2018-February-18, 16:05, said:

I don't understand the stance of those who require awareness. Law 12B uses "infraction" defined as:
Infraction: a player’s breach of Law or of Lawful regulation.

But you can't adjust a score under a paragraph of the laws that states the objective of a score adjustment - you need a law that entitles you to award an adjusted score. And as Barmar, Pran, BudH and others maintain, the only laws applying to this situation that give you the power to adjust the score require some measure of awareness of likely damage on the part of the offender.

[axman]

pran, on 2018-February-17, 02:26, said:

The fact that the 1♠ "opening" bid by North is unauthorized to North/South is immaterial here. West was "warned", and made his own 1NT opening bid at his own risk.

For the alleged "plot" by North to work he needed a lot of cooperation from (particularly) West, and North had little reason to expect that this would really work out.

West dug his own grave.

Some embellishment.

West was aware of the ramifications of the COOT, in particular that doubled undertricks can be at stake if his partner does not find a suitable place to land. Notably the table score has everything to do with W's judgment which leaves little for the effect of the infraction.

[mink]

axman, on 2018-February-19, 12:10, said:

West was aware of the ramifications of the COOT, ...

Yes, but nevertheless SB was in a worse position than he would have been if the COOT did not happen, even before he called. If he bids, this is technically an opening bid, but semantically an overcall. But there are usually no methods agreed for this kind of overcall. A nice idea for example would be to bid 1♠, showing takeout of ♠. But how can he know that partner would interpret it like this? Would double by North now be a comparable call or not? And if North passes, there is some risk that tt on the East seat might pass, too, without bothering to consider the auction carefully? If West bids 1nt, does this promise a ♠ stopper or not?

There is a lot of potential damage for E/W from the start, and the law refuses to compensate for this in case of a non-comparable call, other than silencing South for one round (not clear which side will find this to be helpful).

However, I agree with the majority here that Law 12B1 is only descriptive and does not authorize the TD do make an adjustment. Law 12A1 grants an authorization, but only if the infraction in question is not covered by any Law. This is not the case here - BOOT in handled by Law 31, and this mentions explicitly the Laws 16C, 26B and 72C. This means that Law 23C applies only in case of a comparable call. We see the same principle implemented in Law 27 (insufficient bid), so this is wanted by the lawmakers and not an accidental effect.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2018-February-18, 16:53, said:

If your line of reasoning in coming to an adjustment here is not based on Law 72C, then you are a far cry from what SB was so upset about. If the line is valid, of course, that doesn't matter, and it may be that it is, but all I've said in this thread is that 72C is the wrong approach to this situation.

As many have said before, it is not SB's job to rule, and the TD should take into account all laws when ruling. SB went the 72C route as the 12B route had failed in the past.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2018-February-19, 07:27, said:

But you can't adjust a score under a paragraph of the laws that states the objective of a score adjustment - you need a law that entitles you to award an adjusted score. And as Barmar, Pran, BudH and others maintain, the only laws applying to this situation that give you the power to adjust the score require some measure of awareness of likely damage on the part of the offender.

The whole tone of Law 12 is to prevent infractions gaining, so you are quite wrong.

12A1 The Director may award an adjusted score in favour of a non-offending contestant when he judges that these Laws do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed.

Law 12A2 empowers the TD to award an artificial score when he determines, as here, that no rectification will allow normal play of the board. And 12B following also contains: "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." This defines when there is a damage and surely it is the case that score adjustment must follow when there is damage?

This is very clear and all-embracing.

You are all confusing this much earlier law with Law 72C which is to prevent coffee-housing and also covers all irregularities (not all of which are infractions) where the requirement "could have been aware" is present. Law 12B is absolutely clear and unequivocal. If there is an infraction and the non-offending side loses out you adjust. What else is Law 12B for?

[lamford]

mink, on 2018-February-19, 16:08, said:

Law 12A1 grants an authorization, but only if the infraction in question is not covered by any Law.

That is not so. It is when the TD judges that the Laws do not prescribe rectification for the particular type of violation. In this case the rectification was hugely disadvantageous to EW. Therefore damage exists as clarified in 12B.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2018-February-20, 16:31, said:

That is not so. It is when the TD judges that the Laws do not prescribe rectification for the particular type of violation. In this case the rectification was hugely disadvantageous to EW. Therefore damage exists as clarified in 12B.

Hm.

Quote

Law 12B2: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

Your first sentence addresses a case where the laws do not prescribe rectification. Your second sentence describes a case where they do. In the latter case, 12B2 would seem to apply.

[barmar]

Right. There are basically 2 cases:

1. An infraction occurs, and the Laws prescribe a rectification. Implement that rectification as specified, regardless of whether it restores equity. This doesn't even require that the infraction cause damage (e.g. revokes are often inconsequential, but the NOS still gets tricks transferred as specified).

2. An infraction occurs, and the Laws don't prescribe a specific rectification. If the NOS is damaged, adjust the score to restore equity.

Independent of this, there are possibilities of procedural or disciplinary penalties against the offender. This might mitigate some of the gain they achieved if the rectification didn't restore equity, although the NOS doesn't gain anything on their side.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2018-February-21, 00:18, said:

Hm.

Your first sentence addresses a case where the laws do not prescribe rectification. Your second sentence describes a case where they do. In the latter case, 12B2 would seem to apply.

I think in this case he is not awarding adjusted score for that reason. The rectification itself is not unduly severe to EW, in that South was silenced and he could have chosen to pass. But it did not permit normal play of the board which would be South pulling a penalty double of 1NT to 2D. I believe under the old laws North would not have been able to substitute a penalty double when his BOOT silenced his partner. Is it the intention of the lawmakers to permit him to do so now?

[sanst]

lamford, on 2018-February-21, 16:05, said:

Is it the intention of the lawmakers to permit him to do so now?

I don't think so, otherwise they would have changed Law 12B accordingly. That states that you give an AS to remove the advantage gained by an infraction. It looks like an oversight to me that the TD can correct in case of a comparable call, but not in case of a forced pass that damages the NOS.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2018-February-21, 16:21, said:

I don't think so, otherwise they would have changed Law 12B accordingly. That states that you give an AS to remove the advantage gained by an infraction. It looks like an oversight to me that the TD can correct in case of a comparable call, but not in case of a forced pass that damages the NOS.

And the interpretation of the laws is stated to be in the hands of the TDs who should apply common sense. After all the laws are so full of inconsistencies ...

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2018-February-20, 16:22, said:

You are all confusing this much earlier law with Law 72C which is to prevent coffee-housing and also covers all irregularities (not all of which are infractions) where the requirement "could have been aware" is present. Law 12B is absolutely clear and unequivocal. If there is an infraction and the non-offending side loses out you adjust. What else is Law 12B for?

Law 12B tells the director or appeals committee that when they are empowered by the laws to award an adjusted score the intention of the exercise is to remove any advantage gained by the offending side through the infraction. It's not really a law, it's just an expression of intent. It doesn't say: "Whenever a player gains from an infraction the TD must award an adjusted score that takes away the advantage". This is how you seem to interpret it. It doesn't even say: "When the TD awards an adjusted score they must take away any advantage".

It's no good asking me why the laws are worded as they are - I would have written them differently, and they don't always make perfect sense, but we have to live with them, or all join the Guthrie Club for Law Reform, or something.

[blackshoe]

VixTD, on 2018-February-22, 07:39, said:

It's not really a law, it's just an expression of intent.

It's a law.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-February-21, 16:05, said:

I think in this case he is not awarding adjusted score for that reason. The rectification itself is not unduly severe to EW, in that South was silenced and he could have chosen to pass. But it did not permit normal play of the board which would be South pulling a penalty double of 1NT to 2D.

I don't think that's what's meant by not permitting normal play of the board. Otherwise, all rectifications that put restrictions on a player's actions (e.g. penalty cards, UI) would fit that criteria, and we'd have to adjust.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-February-22, 11:18, said:

I don't think that's what's meant by not permitting normal play of the board. Otherwise, all rectifications that put restrictions on a player's actions (e.g. penalty cards, UI) would fit that criteria, and we'd have to adjust.

So what would you say was meant by "not permitting normal play of the board?"

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2018-February-22, 07:39, said:

Law 12B tells the director or appeals committee that when they are empowered by the laws to award an adjusted score the intention of the exercise is to remove any advantage gained by the offending side through the infraction.

If Law 12B is not a law, why does it not go in the glossary or definitions? There is no mention of "being empowered by the laws to award an adjusted score". Law 12B says when damage exists. Damage exists here. Therefore the TD (or AC) adjusts.

[cherdano]

lamford, on 2018-February-17, 17:09, said:

What is the logic in allowing someone to replace a BOOT with double, silencing his partner, but not allowing someone to replace an IB with a double, silencing his partner?

That's easy to answer. There are many situations where it would be obvious to a lot of players that they could gain from an IB followed by a penalty double. It takes Paul Lamford Charlie the Chimp to spot a situation where you could gain from a BOOT due to the possibility of making a penalty double.

[lamford]

cherdano, on 2018-February-22, 19:16, said:

That's easy to answer. There are many situations where it would be obvious to a lot of players that they could gain from an IB followed by a penalty double. It takes Paul Lamford Charlie the Chimp to spot a situation where you could gain from a BOOT due to the possibility of making a penalty double.

That is only because the comparable call is so new that people have not had a chance to pick up on the wheeze. Soon players will be alerting 1 level opening bids out of turn as "may contain an unbalanced 20-22 which wants to double 1NT". On those hands, the auction is about 78% to go Pass-Pass when nothing is lost so the methods are very sound, but possibly brown sticker. In addition the strong possibility of 20-22 unbalanced makes it more attractive for the dealer to respond light.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2018-February-22, 17:16, said:

If Law 12B is not a law, why does it not go in the glossary or definitions?

I don't know about a glossary, but the definitions are explicitly part of the laws.

lamford, on 2018-February-22, 17:16, said:

Law 12B says when damage exists. Damage exists here. Therefore the TD (or AC) adjusts.

Even if there's been no infraction?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2018-February-22, 20:56, said:

Even if there's been no infraction?

No, only after an infraction. I agree this is a Law and it does not matter whether it is in the definitions. It says: "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."

That law says when damage exists, so that is here. It does not require any awareness whatsoever of the possibility of gain. Are we able to adjust the score under Law 12B? Yes, of course - the first part of 12B specifies what the objective of score adjustment is. To take away a good result obtained by an infraction, whether the perpetrator could have been aware of the damage or not. Law 73C is, I submit, an additional provision when an irregularity gains, not when an infraction gains. I cannot see any other interpretation. Mind you the laws seem to use infraction and irregularity seemingly at random.

The TD can use: "On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B or on his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so".