[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-29, 20:48, said:

Thanks for the vote of confidence; I am really mystified by all this discussion of what seems to me a WTP question.

It looks as if the attempt to take advantage of the UI was the player's chief reason for choosing his call. Adjust, maybe give a PP, next case.

Where I disagree with you is on the interpretation of Law 73 which concludes, "must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorised information",

TD: What did the UI suggest to you?

Chancer: I thought that South was either weak or strong for his invite. I decided to play him for being weak and hoped that 3NT might, for some reason, fail.

TD: Did you take any advantage from that unauthorised information?

Chancer: No, even opposite a minimum invite, it must still be right to bid 3NT, and Pass must be hugely against the odds. But I saw an opportunity to score a goal against SB and took a shot from 60 yards. The cause of the damage was not my selecting Pass, which increased the a priori expectancy of EW, hence no damage, but the freakish layout of the cards. In 1000 simulations opposite a 19-count, 3NT did not fail a single time.

In my opinion, for a call to be demonstrably suggested, it must be more likely to succeed as a result of the UI, and have positive expectancy.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2014-November-30, 05:40, said:

Where I disagree with you is on the interpretation of Law 73 which concludes, "must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorised information",

TD: What did the UI suggest to you?

Chancer: I thought that South was either weak or strong for his invite. I decided to play him for being weak and hoped that 3NT might, for some reason, fail.

The damage is real. 3NT failed for "some reason", which is the quoted reasoning of the offender. "Chancer" used the UI in his choice. I see no difference between taking advantage and gaining advantage. The result was an advantage; leave the intent factor for the decision about PP's. Maybe in order to achieve equity (for these pairs at this table, not for some simulated result) we must go through L12A1 enroute. But, we can get there.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2014-November-30, 10:45, said:

I see no difference between taking advantage and gaining advantage.

And yet there is a difference. Suppose for the sake of argument the TD judges that he did in fact carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, thus complying with Law 73C. Nevertheless, through the lie of the cards, some bad decisions by the defense (not related to any infraction, if you wish), and some good luck, he got a good score. So he "gained an advantage". I don't think it follows that he must have taken advantage of UI to do so.

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-29, 14:24, said:

On further reflection, I have to agree with my earlier thought. 73F applies to all of 73, not just 73D. So if an infraction of any earlier part (than 73F) of law 73 does not lead to a false inference by an opponent, 73F is inoperative; it provides no rectification. Now there are two sides (AFAICS) to the ensuing discussion: either 12A1 applies and you adjust the score on the basis that the laws do not provide indemnity for the particular type of violation concerned — that being, I think, a violation of the proprieties in Law 73 which does not lead to a false inference by an opponent, but does lead to damage via some other mechanism — or 12B2 applies, and the director is prohibited from adjusting the score.

I agree with the sentiment that applying 12A1 here is "better" in a lot of ways, but I'm more concerned with "legal" than "better". To me, Law 73F implies that if there's no false inference tied to the violation of a propriety, there's no rectification. Suppose there were a revoke on trick 12. The law says there's no rectification for that. Would anyone now try to use 12A1 to adjust the score? Okay, in the current laws we have 64C, but that's new in this edition. What if it weren't there?

Put it another way: I'd be happy to be convinced that 12A1 applies. I'm not. Convince me.

In your words: "73F is inoperative; it provides no rectification."

Law 12B2 says:

Law 12B2 said:

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.

As 73F does not provide rectification for a breach of 73C, 12B2 is not relevant here.

On the other hand, we have Law 84D (thanks to Aardv for pointing this out on another recent thread):

Law 84D said:

The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12).

and in this context I claim that Law 12A1:

Law 12A1 said:

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.

is more relevant than Law 12B2.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-30, 14:30, said:

And yet there is a difference. Suppose for the sake of argument the TD judges that he did in fact carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, thus complying with Law 73C. Nevertheless, through the lie of the cards, some bad decisions by the defense (not related to any infraction, if you wish), and some good luck, he got a good score. So he "gained an advantage". I don't think it follows that he must have taken advantage of UI to do so.

If you gain, you "take" it. The TD adjusts so you don't "get" it. If he doesn't, you have "taken" advantage. And, regardless of your stated intentions, you have used the UI in the process.

[blackshoe]

Sorry Agua, but I don't buy it. Not at all. It sounds an awful lot like "if it hesitates, shoot it".

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2014-November-30, 15:57, said:

As 73F does not provide rectification for a breach of 73C, 12B2 is not relevant here.

On the other hand, we have Law 84D (thanks to Aardv for pointing this out on another recent thread):

and in this context I claim that Law 12A1:

is more relevant than Law 12B2.

With the caveat that 73F doesn't provide rectification for *this* breach of 73C, but might do so for a different breach of that law, this is convincing enough. Thanks.