[VixTD]

axman, on 2017-March-16, 11:24, said:

L13A and L13F say different things but are not in tension in this case. The TD should recognize that L13F prescribes that removing the errant card and proceeding from that point is the situation:

", then when the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played the deal may be so played with no change of call."

It is notable that L21A is supportive of L13F.

That's not what law 13F says. It says that the surplus card is removed and the auction and play continue unaffected. That's not compatible with the director deeming that the deal can be corrected and played, or the director awarding an adjusted score, which is what law 13A says.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-March-16, 15:29, said:

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

pran, on 2017-March-16, 15:56, said:

I have never been happy with Law 12B2, and back in 1980 I asked the Norwegian Law Committee if this correctly expressed the intention. In my opinion the Law should read:

The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is unduly severe to the offending side or unduly advantageous to the non-offending side.

But I was told that Law 12B2 was indeed intended as written.

Can someone enlighten me?

I just by chance discovered that my preferred text above is almost word for word identical to the text in §15 of the international Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1949.

When and why was this changed to the current Law?

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2017-March-20, 10:22, said:

When and why was this changed to the current Law?

I have no idea.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-March-20, 12:56, said:

I have no idea.

If you don't know perhaps you are not the right person to answer the question.

Anyway, I am not happy with the fact that in the case of a surplus card, the NOS can be damaged by the infraction.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2017-March-21, 06:10, said:

If you don't know perhaps you are not the right person to answer the question.

Anyway, I am not happy with the fact that in the case of a surplus card, the NOS can be damaged by the infraction.

There are several ways in which a NOS can be damaged by an infraction. I've seen a pair be damaged by the compulsory play of a penalty card. I've also seen someone be damaged by the choice he made following an opening lead out of turn. These are reasons why the tendency is towards equity based rectifications rather than mechanical penalties. But I didn't think you like that tendency?

[barmar]

12B2 has been revised in the 2017 Laws, but I don't think it will satisfy you. They changed "ground" to "grounds".

I'm curious why you think the Law should be as you suggest? You really think TDs should be allowed to increase the penalty to the offender beyond that prescribed in the Laws? In many cases, they can accomplish the same thing with a PP. And in the case of revokes, the Law specifically authorizes the TD to decide that the automatic penalty is not sufficient to restore equity, and adjust further.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-March-21, 09:16, said:

12B2 has been revised in the 2017 Laws, but I don't think it will satisfy you. They changed "ground" to "grounds".

I'm curious why you think the Law should be as you suggest? You really think TDs should be allowed to increase the penalty to the offender beyond that prescribed in the Laws? In many cases, they can accomplish the same thing with a PP. And in the case of revokes, the Law specifically authorizes the TD to decide that the automatic penalty is not sufficient to restore equity, and adjust further.

On the contrary I am concerned with the non-offending side.

The current Laws do not allow the Director to award an adjusted score on the ground that the score prescribed in the laws is unduly severe to the non-offending side.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2017-March-21, 06:21, said:

There are several ways in which a NOS can be damaged by an infraction. I've seen a pair be damaged by the compulsory play of a penalty card. I've also seen someone be damaged by the choice he made following an opening lead out of turn. These are reasons why the tendency is towards equity based rectifications rather than mechanical penalties. But I didn't think you like that tendency?

I believe Vampyr thinks that people who cannot bid in turn, cannot follow suit, or cannot lead or play only when it is their go should suffer a penalty. I have not seen any argument from Vampyr that someone should be able to gain luckily from an infraction, and I share that view, as does Brian Senior. Restoration of equity after an infraction should be a minimum requirement. 12B1 is clear:

"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." The terminology "Damage exist when" rather than "There is damage if" strongly suggests that equity should ALWAYS be restored when someone is damaged by an inraction. But we disagree on this, as does RMB1.

I think I am persuaded by pran and Vampyr that if someone benefits by having 14 cards, equity is automatically restored.

[blackshoe]

I guess "benefits" means "got a result greater than equity had the player not had the extra card". If the putative OS got a result greater than their equity in the hand, then the putative NOS must have got a result less than their equity in the hand, and that's "damage" isn't it?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-March-22, 08:22, said:

I guess "benefits" means "got a result greater than equity had the player not had the extra card". If the putative OS got a result greater than their equity in the hand, then the putative NOS must have got a result less than their equity in the hand, and that's "damage" isn't it?

It certainly is. I am amazed by this law, which I had never thought about before.

I guess it is important not to mention the extra card when you see it during the play, even if you hold it in your own hand, to increase the possibility that it will end up in the quitted tricks. Should the card be considered to be in the quitted tricks if the offender claims? Obviously yes.

On the other hand, if the auction has not begun or just begin, the NOS should tell the offender as soon as they notice, since they will have no recourse if damaged, should the offender discover the card before it is in the quitted tricks. Of course they may benefit instead, so they wil have to give up this possibility, or gamble.