Poor old declarer!

[bluejak]

Perhaps. We have a Law that basically says "Cancel the board and give artificial adjusted scores". Now we are looking at assigning a score, but to assign a score, we have to follow the general rules of assigning, which are to consider what would have happened without the irregularity. If we believe that without the irregularity declarer would not have got his good score, can we honestly assign him a good score?

[pran]

Perhaps.  We have a Law that basically says "Cancel the board and give artificial adjusted scores".  Now we are looking at assigning a score, but to assign a score, we have to follow the general rules of assigning, which are to consider what would have happened without the irregularity.  If we believe that without the irregularity declarer would not have got his good score, can we honestly assign him a good score?

Which law is that? The only part of law 13 that uses the word "artificial" is definitely irrelevant because it only applies when the irregularity is discovered before any call has been made.

 

Here a result has been obtained, good to declarer allegedly because of the worst defence ever. It is possible that this misdefence was caused by the offending side's own irregularity, so what?

 

I assume you will never award an adjusted score taking away a good result from a non-offending side for the basic reason that opponents' play was irrational?