[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-September-17, 05:41, said:

Essentially you apply Law 23 if you think he could have known, Law 12A1 if you think he could not have known.

Then why do the laws not just say "when there is an infraction, the director shall adjust the score"?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-September-17, 10:14, said:

Then why do the laws not just say "when there is an infraction, the director shall adjust the score"?

Because, if the laws provide rectification which is greater than or equal to zero, and the NOS are then not damaged, there is no requirement for further action. When there is damage to the NOS, and someone could have known, or when the laws fail to provide rectification, the TD should act.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2015-September-17, 10:07, said:

In the case of the Double Infraction, there was no positive rectification for the non-offending side, therefore L12B2 does not apply. There are plenty of example of rectification with insufficient bids not costing, or revokes not costing, because the rectification, making the bid sufficient or transferring one trick, just restores equity. However the rectification is still positive or zero. In the example in question, the rectification was, effectively, to reduce the number of tricks taken by the declarer from 10 to 9. How can that be rectification? And surely that is a prime example of what is intended by L12A1?

I did not argue, nor seem to argue, that it is not indemnity if it does not perfectly restore equity. I believe that when adjusting, the TD should endeavour to restore equity as closely as possible, and should not give only 90% to the non-offenders as a 'thieving' insurance company might. I argue that a rectification which damages the non-offender is no rectification at all. For what it is worth, I am told the declarer in Double Infraction would have settled for anything that "fell short of perfect restitution". Instead I believe he was given 100% of 4S-1.

I'll have one last try and then give up and leave you to try to get the laws changed so that they say what you think they mean. I think perhaps, from reading what you have written above, that our differences stem from you thinking that "rectification" refers to an outcome, an adjustment or restitution, whereas I think it refers to a process.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-September-17, 10:22, said:

Because, if the laws provide rectification which is greater than or equal to zero, and the NOS are then not damaged, there is no requirement for further action. When there is damage to the NOS, and someone could have known, or when the laws fail to provide rectification, the TD should act.

I think that you fail to understand the meaning of "could". It does not mean: "Lamford is able to construct/concoct a situation where the person in question could". It means "could".

If a player clearly randomly and accidentally drops a card out of his hand then he randomly and accidentally drops a card out of his hand. That can not be contrived as a possible attempt to cheat. (But it is, of course, an infraction.)

What you and I think of the restricted choice situation is essentially irrelevant. No matter how you interpret it, it illustrates that percentages may change due to an infraction. And, inevitably, there will be situations where the winning line would be the highest percentage action absent the infraction and the different, losing line will be the highest percentage action with the infraction.
A declarer who takes the highest percentage line that happens to lose (where he would have taken the winning line without the infraction) has all my sympathy, but will not get rectification.

Rik

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2015-September-17, 10:30, said:

I'll have one last try and then give up and leave you to try to get the laws changed so that they say what you think they mean. I think perhaps, from reading what you have written above, that our differences stem from you thinking that "rectification" refers to an outcome, an adjustment or restitution, whereas I think it refers to a process.

I have no desire to get the laws changed on this issue. I think they are clear and unambiguous as they stand. Again you are putting words in my mouth and speculating on what I think. I agree that rectification could be either a process or the result of that process, but I do not see how that is relevant.

Law 12A1 is unambiguous. That states:
"The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent."

It does say "may", so that is his judgement. It does require him to view that the Laws did not provide indemnity, whether that is some discounted percentage of the correct equity or otherwise. It does require the non-offender to be damaged.

It does not need the TD to check whether some law on penalty cards, revokes, or bids or leads out of turn has been applied and whether the rectification was enough. If the Law failed to provide indemnity, the TD may award an adjusted score. I would suggest that any TD worth his salt would then read 12B to decide whether he should.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2015-September-17, 09:48, said:

They have not gained from the infraction. As you observed, they are in exactly the same position as if they won the trick and led the other card to the next trick. How have they gained? The other card might well have been a hopeless defence. You are arguing that they benefited from being forced to defend correctly!

They have gained and their opponents have lost out, because they were forced to play a card that they would not have chosen and it happened to work to their benefit.

lamford, on 2015-September-17, 09:48, said:

Just to summarise. I believe that if a Law fails to provide rectification, in that application of that Law makes someone worse off, then the TD should award an adjusted score. In essence, you must not be able to gain from an infraction, whether or not you knew you would. If we disagree on that principle, then we have to agree to differ.

This seems to me to contradict what you said above it.

Let's be clear that I do disagree with you on that principle, as I imagine do all the TDs who have seen a player whose partner was silenced, punt a lucky 3NT. I believe it's called "rub of the green". I understand that unhappiness with those sort of results has been behind the general trend towards more equity-based laws (cue Nige1), but they haven't yet created an "infractor can never gain" principle of the sort you think exists.

(Sorry, this came after what I said would be my last attempt, as I just noticed this post I had missed before. No more from me now.)

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-September-17, 10:37, said:

And, inevitably, there will be situations where the winning line would be the highest percentage action absent the infraction and the different, losing line will be the highest percentage action with the infraction.

Such was the case with the old thread QJTxx opposite Axxxx. Declarer leads the queen and two small cards appear. He rises and RHO shows out. This is the archetypal "Probst cheat" problem, which was doing the rounds in the Europeans at San Remo 2009. Would you adjust or not? And would you use Law 23 or some other law?

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2015-September-17, 10:47, said:

Let's be clear that I do disagree with you on that principle, as I imagine do all the TDs who have seen a player whose partner was silenced, punt a lucky 3NT.

I would agree that this is the most common call in Standard Eustacian. However, given its frequency, is it not the case that a person who committed any infraction during the auction which caused himself to be silenced "could well have been aware that his infraction could well damage the non-offending side"? "See Law 23" is the most common phrase in all the IB and BOOT laws. There are players at SB's club who would benefit from both a visit to Specsavers and from being silenced, and SB bids 3NT and makes it opposite them all the time. It is harder to defend when you have no idea what he has. Come to think of it, I am tempted to take up Standard Eustacian, although I am aware of Law 72B1. A recent partner would have benefited from being silenced, and I would not have gone for 1100!