[Cyberyeti]

 lamford, on 2018-September-28, 05:24, said:

I don't think there is any contradiction. Let us dissect this whole Law in detail:
B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of 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 favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.
2. 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.

To suggest that this does not indicate how the TD is supposed to rule makes no sense. The TD is supposed to remove any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. If as a result of the rectification of an infraction, the TD judges that the non-offending side are insufficiently compensated, but still do not get a result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred, then she cannot award an adjusted score for that, but if the non-offending side get a worse result as a consequence of the infraction, then the TD can, and I submit should, adjust. All of the discretionary powers given to the TD align with this interpretation.

This clause could be summed up in a nutshell. An infraction can never gain, but can break even. And there is a large number of TDs who I have spoken to in European events and further afield who agree with me, but they are aware this is not how the laws are applied.

Custom and practice indicate this is not how it's applied. Example from one I was on the appeals panel for.

You have a 4432 14 or so you have one bid and try 3N. It turns out partner has 5 spades, but they're 4-0 offside, 3N makes 4♠ doesn't. No adjustment for that.

I think where you have a blind guess with no extraneous info, you are allowed to get it right,

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-September-28, 06:00, said:

Custom and practice indicate this is not how it's applied. Example from one I was on the appeals panel for.

You have a 4432 14 or so you have one bid and try 3N. It turns out partner has 5 spades, but they're 4-0 offside, 3N makes 4♠ doesn't. No adjustment for that.

I think where you have a blind guess with no extraneous info, you are allowed to get it right,

That contradicts 12B1, in that the NOS obtained a better result than they would have done without the infraction. If they obtained the same result, say 3NT+1 instead of 4S= at teams, then I would not adjust. Custom and practice should not override a fairly precise wording. By all means change the law, if that is what is believed best, so that you can gain from an infraction, but that would make the game worse in my view.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2018-September-28, 06:29, said:

That contradicts 12B1, in that the NOS obtained a better result than they would have done without the infraction.

It says "because of an infraction". Just because something happens after an infraction, it doesn't mean it was because of it. The infraction didn't cause the player to guess right, although it provided the opportunity for it.

As an analogy, if you leave the keys in your car and someone takes it for a joyride, you wouldn't say that leaving the keys caused the joyride.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2018-September-28, 06:45, said:

It says "because of an infraction". Just because something happens after an infraction, it doesn't mean it was because of it. The infraction didn't cause the player to guess right, although it provided the opportunity for it.

As an analogy, if you leave the keys in your car and someone takes it for a joyride, you wouldn't say that leaving the keys caused the joyride.

Poor analogy. Maybe it didn't cause the joyride but it most certainly invited it.

I don't know about your jurisdiction but where I live you would be held (at least partly) responsible for any damage from this joyride.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2018-September-28, 06:45, said:

It says "because of an infraction". Just because something happens after an infraction, it doesn't mean it was because of it. The infraction didn't cause the player to guess right, although it provided the opportunity for it.

The infraction, in Cyberyeti's case, caused the good result. Without it, the pair would (presumably) have reached the 5-4 spade fit. The decision to bid 3NT was because the player had to select the final contract. "Because", in this context, is equivalent to "arising from". With some partners, I could elect to bid 3NT as well, but then I think that the TD should adjust as I "could have been aware" that silencing the ox opposite from correcting to 4S "could well damage" the NOS. The beauty of 12B1, applied correctly, is there is no need to decide whether something was an accident or deliberate cheating.

[barmar]

I'll try another analogy?

What caused all the deaths on the Titanic? Was it hitting the iceberg, or the lack of sufficient lifeboats?

Obviously, if the collision hadn't occurred in the first place, there wouldn't have been any deaths. But even with the collision, if they had enough lifeboats, most of those lives would have been saved.

Both the collision and missing lifeboats contributed to the loss of life, but if you had to give a specific cause, which would it be?

[Cyberyeti]

 lamford, on 2018-September-28, 07:10, said:

The infraction, in Cyberyeti's case, caused the good result. Without it, the pair would (presumably) have reached the 5-4 spade fit. The decision to bid 3NT was because the player had to select the final contract. "Because", in this context, is equivalent to "arising from". With some partners, I could elect to bid 3NT as well, but then I think that the TD should adjust as I "could have been aware" that silencing the ox opposite from correcting to 4S "could well damage" the NOS. The beauty of 12B1, applied correctly, is there is no need to decide whether something was an accident or deliberate cheating.

Could well damage should imply has a decent chance of damaging, there was a <1% chance that this would damage opps (it needed the 4-0 offside break and some other miracles and a good view or two), I don't think the opener would have seen it coming that it could conceivably have damaged the opps.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2018-September-28, 06:53, said:

Poor analogy. Maybe it didn't cause the joyride but it most certainly invited it.

I don't know about your jurisdiction but where I live you would be held (at least partly) responsible for any damage from this joyride.

I left my keys in my car for a couple of days. Sitting on the front seat. I have a spare set, and used that. During those days the car was either locked in my garage, moving with me driving, or parked in a parking lot with the doors locked. Are you claiming that if someone broke into my garage or broke into the car in a parking lot and "took the car for a joyride" I would be held to have "invited" the theft? The mind boggles.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2018-September-28, 12:28, said:

I left my keys in my car for a couple of days. Sitting on the front seat. I have a spare set, and used that. During those days the car was either locked in my garage, moving with me driving, or parked in a parking lot with the doors locked. Are you claiming that if someone broke into my garage or broke into the car in a parking lot and "took the car for a joyride" I would be held to have "invited" the theft? The mind boggles.

The keys were still kept under lock, weren't they?

[weejonnie]

Presumably we are looking at "assistance gained through the infraction".

It seems quite clear from law 12 that if there is a prescribed rectification then the director cannot adjust the score, so only in cases where an adjusted score can be awarded in the laws, is the director allowed to do so.

Which leaves us onto 23C (presumably)

If following the substitution of a comparable call [see Laws 27B1(b), 30B1(b)(ii), 31A2(a) and
32A2(a)] the Director judges at the end of the play that without the assistance gained through
the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the
non‐offending side is damaged, he shall award an adjusted score [see Law 12C1(b)].

So: did RR actually gain from the infraction. Instead of applying his best (or whatever) bridge technique he was forced, by the rectification applied following the infraction, to have a wild guess as to the final contract. I do not really regard that as assistance. A serendipitous outcome? Yes! Assistance? No!

I think that I have already noted that after rectification a side may make whatever call (within limits) even if they appear to gain from it. The rectification for the COOT is that RR must either make a comparable call or his partner will be silenced.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2018-September-28, 07:20, said:

I'll try another analogy?

What caused all the deaths on the Titanic? Was it hitting the iceberg, or the lack of sufficient lifeboats?

Obviously, if the collision hadn't occurred in the first place, there wouldn't have been any deaths. But even with the collision, if they had enough lifeboats, most of those lives would have been saved.

Both the collision and missing lifeboats contributed to the loss of life, but if you had to give a specific cause, which would it be?

There is (almost) never a single cause for a disaster and many of the contributing circumstances have been improved for better safety since then.

Just consider (and the list is not complete):
Had the radio operator on SS Californian not been requested by Titanic to "shut up - you disturb me" he would most likely have listened and eventually received the CQD calls from Titanic - - -.
(CQD was the distress signal at the time but SOS was just established to become the new universal distress signal.
Titanic was probably the first ship in distress to send SOS which they did later during their watch.)

Had the crew member on SS Californian who was keen on radio known how to start up the radio receiver he would certainly have received the CQD, he did try - - -.
Had the officers on SS Californian realized that the flares they observed was for emergency and not for fun - - -.
Had the ship builders had access to ample steel quality for Titanic - - -

And finally:
Titanic could survive complete destruction of the first four sections of the ship but was doomed when the fifth section became flooded.
Had they (deliberately) hit the Iceberg head on instead of attempting to avoid the collision by turning away then Titanic would not have sunk.

So what did cause the disaster?

[sanst]

Here we are again, Lamford dissecting the laws to a point that was never intended by its makers. But he seems to forget Law 12A1, which allows the TD to award an AS if the Laws do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed. In this case the Laws do prescribe a rectification, there is also 12B2, it’s not a 23 case since it’s not a comparable call, so the result stands. And the Titanic sank as the result of a combination of causes, as is the case in most disasters.

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-September-28, 09:02, said:

Could well damage should imply has a decent chance of damaging, there was a <1% chance that this would damage opps

There are plenty of partners I have where it could well damage the opponents for me to play 3NT rather than my partner to play 4S, regardless of the combined hands. If you silence your partner, you could always have been aware that it could gain. But, I submit, you don't actually need to be aware. You just need to benefit from the infraction.

[lamford]

 sanst, on 2018-September-29, 01:40, said:

Here we are again, Lamford dissecting the laws to a point that was never intended by its makers. But he seems to forget Law 12A1, which allows the TD to award an AS if the Laws do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed. In this case the Laws do prescribe a rectification, there is also 12B2, it’s not a 23 case since it’s not a comparable call, so the result stands. And the Titanic sank as the result of a combination of causes, as is the case in most disasters.

I think it is barmar who is attempting to dissect the difference between "because" and "arising from" which was never intended by the Lawmakers. I agree that none of the other laws allows an adjustment in this case. However Law 12B is very clearly written and does allow an adjustment. And how do you know what the Lawmakers intended?

[lamford]

 weejonnie, on 2018-September-28, 13:09, said:

It seems quite clear from law 12 that if there is a prescribed rectification then the director cannot adjust the score

It seems quite clear that you have not read law 12.

[weejonnie]

 lamford, on 2018-September-29, 09:07, said:

It seems quite clear that you have not read law 12.

2. 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.

I think this is pretty conclusive: where there is rectification specified under the laws the director cannot use his rights to offer an adjusted score.

[lamford]

 weejonnie, on 2018-September-29, 12:25, said:

2. 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.

I think this is pretty conclusive: where there is rectification specified under the laws the director cannot use his rights to offer an adjusted score.

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of 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 favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

I think this is pretty conclusive: where there is rectification specified under the laws and after application of that the innocent side still obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred, then the TD redresses the damage caused to the non-offending side.

What you quoted does not prevent the TD awarding an adjusted score. It prevents the TD awarding an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification was unduly severe (or advantageous) to either side. The adjusted score in this thread is on the grounds that the NOS still suffered from the infraction after the rectification took place.

[barmar]

"The objective of score adjustment" is just describing a general philosophy. It's not stating that a score adjustment should be made whenever damage exists.

Various laws then describe specific cases where adjustments should be made. That's when you take this "objective" into consideration.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2018-September-29, 12:30, said:

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of 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 favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

I think this is pretty conclusive: where there is rectification specified under the laws and after application of that the innocent side still obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred, then the TD redresses the damage caused to the non-offending side.

What you quoted does not prevent the TD awarding an adjusted score. It prevents the TD awarding an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification was unduly severe (or advantageous) to either side. The adjusted score in this thread is on the grounds that the NOS still suffered from the infraction after the rectification took place.

Various laws include a "safety catch" for the possible situation that the rectification provided results in insufficient compensation for the damage to the non-offending side. (See for example Law 64C)

Law 12B2 explicitly forbids such adjustment whenever a law provides a specific rectification with no such "safety catch".
The situation in then that the rectification provided is "unduly severe to the non-offending side", possibly also "unduly advantageous to the offending side".

[lamford]

 pran, on 2018-September-29, 14:57, said:

Law 12B2 explicitly forbids such adjustment whenever a law provides a specific rectification with no such "safety catch".
The situation in then that the rectification provided is "unduly severe to the non-offending side", possibly also "unduly advantageous to the offending side".

No. Law 12B2 prevents the TD adjusting because the rectification is unduly severe or advantageous. Law 12B1 then allows an adjustment because the NOS gets a worse result than without the infraction. That is the "safety catch".