Major Penalty card

[VixTD]

I am surprised that nobody seems to grasp the idea of awarding a split score here: For declaring side the table result and for defending side the likely score had they called the Director.

 

So the question remains:

Under what law are you adjusting the score of the defence (and only the defence)?

Was my reply to this question invisible?

[blackshoe]

I agree with Barmar and Blackshoe that the correction of the (first) revoke draws attention to it. There's nothing in the laws to say what actions constitute "drawing attention", whether they have to be verbal.

 

All players should call the director at that point. I understand that dummy may be wary of doing so, but declarer has no such excuse. I expect most competitors at green-point events to be aware of this responsibility, although it's possible that some of these players are inexperienced. I consider both sides to be offending.

 

I agree with Bixby that there was a second revoke, which was condoned by declarer.

 

According to law 12B1 the purpose of a 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". By failing to call the director, EW gained because they were not informed of the restrictions on the play of the major penalty card, so they receive an assigned adjusted score based on the likely outcome(s) had they not overruffed. NS are not due any adjustment, as they are an offending side, and did not gain from the offence of failing to call the TD, so they keep the score obtained in the play of the board. I'd also warn both sides for failing to call the TD at the appropriate time, or penalise them if it is a second offence (WB148.2l)

 

Under what law are you adjusting the score of the defence (and only the defence)?

 

Was my reply to this question invisible?

If you mean the first of the three posts quoted here, which was post # 10 in the thread and is on the first page of the topic, no, not invisible, but it's interesting that you "replied" to the question in the second quote (post # 23, page 2) long before it was asked. As for the argument you present (a split score based on Law 12B1), I don't think it holds water. For one thing, you're talking about multiple offenses with different offending and non-offending sides. For another, I don't think 12B1 justifies splitting the score - that would have to be justified by some other law (for example, the provision in 12C1{b} for splitting a score after a SEWoG by the NOS, which doesn't apply here).

 

If you talking about some reply to post # 23 that you made after that post, then yes, it's invisible. In fact, it's not here at all (I can see "invisible" posts).

[iviehoff]

Was my reply to this question invisible?

It was asked of Pran, and he had not indicated that he was adopting your argument, in fact he doesn't appear to have noticed it because he said that nobody had considered it.

 

But let's look at your argument, a bit further than the unfortunaate reference to 12B1, because you give some sort of an argument if we look further than that. (It is clear from 12C1(a) that you still need to point to a specific legal justification somewhere else for adjusting, and 12B1 is just a general philosophy of adjustment, not a specific irregularity which gives grounds for adjustment.)

 

Your argument for adjusting is the offence of failing to call the director. There is no specific power to adjust for that offence, so to adjust you'd have to use 12A1, which is a general power, rarely used, to adjust for anything where the laws don't give indemnity. As I already said, I don't like adjusting for failing to call the director on this occasion, because it isn't really sufficiently clear to the players that attention was in fact drawn to treat them as offending in my view. Your grounds for a split score is that both sides are offending, which is a correct argument for a split score, but the offence of the other side is also failing to call, which as I said I don't like. There's a third issue I don't like with this ruling, which is that 12A1 refers to giving indemnity, but by treating both sides as offending and therefore adjusting one side down but not the other up, so you aren't giving anyone indemnity. But that maybe probably an arguable point.

[pran]

Of course the adjusted scores need not balance. Even the most junior TD has learnt that. However that does not mean that you can split the score because your friends are involved, or because your wife shouted at you before you left the house this morning. It means that you can split the scores for cause.

I consider this text an insult that I would never expect from any person considering himself a gentleman.

 

Of course split scores, like any adjusted score are used for cause.

 

And may I just remind that PPs should seldom if ever be used to rectify an unfair result, they are penalties, not rectifications.

[VixTD]

I just thought it was odd that Pran asked whether anyone had considered awarding non-balancing scores, when I had done just that. Iviehoff and Bluejak asked under what law a non-balancing score could be given, and I thought I had explained that too.

 

I still think my ruling is correct. I did look to other laws than 12B1, but that seemed to be the one that fitted best. I was considering the failure to call the director when required to do so an "offence" for the purposes of 12B1, and so it is, but if we take as the original offence the revoke, then at that point EW are the only offending side, and law 11A states that:

 

The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director

Maybe that means if no rectification is given to one side, none may be given to the other side either. Still considering NS as non-offending as far as the revoke is concerned, law 12C1(b) states that:

 

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted.

Could failure to call the director be regarded as a "serious error"? Probably. "Unrelated to the infraction"? That depends what sort of "relationship" you have in mind. It could at a stretch be called "wild or gambling".

 

I still prefer 12B1, and if you insist, 12A1. It fits with the explicit intent of the laws, and serves justice.

[c_corgi]

Could failure to call the director be regarded as a "serious error"?...

 

I think it is best not to pursue that line of reasoning. We may find that calling the director could be regarded as "wild or gambling". :P

[pran]

I just thought it was odd that Pran asked whether anyone had considered awarding non-balancing scores, when I had done just that. Iviehoff and Bluejak asked under what law a non-balancing score could be given, and I thought I had explained that too.

 

On browsing back in this thread I discover that you indeed did just that. At the time I didn't notice, but I agree that you gave a very good explanation.

 

What worried me was the suggestions for apparently using PP to restore equity, that is plain simple abuse of the PP tool.

[jallerton]

Maybe that means if no rectification is given to one side, none may be given to the other side either. Still considering NS as non-offending as far as the revoke is concerned, law 12C1(b) states that:

 

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted.

 

 

Could failure to call the director be regarded as a "serious error"? Probably. "Unrelated to the infraction"? That depends what sort of "relationship" you have in mind. It could at a stretch be called "wild or gambling".

 

I still prefer 12B1, and if you insist, 12A1. It fits with the explicit intent of the laws, and serves justice.

 

In my view, failure to call the TD to assess rectification is "wild", far more so than, for example, making a poor call later in the auction after a UI infraction.

 

Another possibility is to say that both sides are "offending" as the problem was caused by the infraction of failing to call the TD. In ACBL-land this would be easy, we could apply Law 12C1e(ii) to each side, but using 12C1e does not appear to be allowed in the EBU.

[blackshoe]

Standing on the table and singing the Hallelujah Chorus is wild, but I don't expect it would have any impact on this ruling.

[barmar]

I can't recall anyone ever using SEWoG to refer to anything other than bridge decisions, not legal decisions. I admit that there's nothing in the Laws that supports this restriction, but it's just not how I think anyone has ever understood that Law to be used.

[gnasher]

I can't recall anyone ever using SEWoG to refer to anything other than bridge decisions, not legal decisions. I admit that there's nothing in the Laws that supports this restriction, but it's just not how I think anyone has ever understood that Law to be used.

A revoke would be treated as a SEWoG, wouldn't it? That's an accidental failure to follow the rules which is likely to damage one's own side. It seems to me that not calling the director in this situation is a more serious error, because it's an intentional breach of the rules.

[iviehoff]

I still prefer 12B1, and if you insist, 12A1...

law 12C1(b) states that...

law 11A states that...

12B1 is never a reason to adjust, this is well established. It really is a basic error to think it can ever be a reason. So I think you need to know never to cite to 12B1 as your reason to adjust. 12A1 is a reason to adjust, but since it in essence says that there is a hole in the laws it needs to be very sparingly used. With so many irregularities around that have specific rectifications, it seems curious to need to point to 12A1 on this occasion. What's wrong with Law 23?

 

In relation to 12C1b, I am happy at the suggestion that failing to call the director to assess rectification of the opponent's obvious successive irregularities committed in plain sight is a serious error, but it clearly it is fully bound up with those irregularities. If there were two quite separate irregularities, you could say failing to call for the second one is a serious error that you would use to change your adjustment for the first one. Here it is all of a piece.

 

Jeffrey and others suggest that it might be "wild" or "gambling". "Wild" is doing things you know are mad without regard to the consequences, and I don't think it was anything like that. In fact the player was quite the opposite of wild, he was meek. "Gambling" is making a conscious decision to do something you know is against the odds in the hope that on this occasion it will prove the winning decision. It wasn't anything like that either.

 

So I really don't think we are in 12C1b territory. But even if we were in 12C1b territory, in 2007 we stopped the practice of just giving the table score to the wild/erroneous side. Rather what you have to do these days is grant the adjustment for the thing you are adjusting for, and then separately assess the cost of the subsequent error/wildness.

 

Quite clearly 11A is pertinent. The non-offending side (for the tangible irregularities, not the failure to call point) took action before the rectification. This is why in my original post I was entirely happy that the non-offending side get no rectification - it all happened in plain sight, and they need to learn to call the director. The question, that Bluejak importantly made, is whether we want to do something to keep the offending side honest. In such a case the non-offending side would normally then benefit from that adjustment, unless you have SEWOG or both sides offending as cause to split the score.

 

As I said before, putting the unfortunate references to 12B1 to one side, your approach is a legal approach (the dubiousness of using 12A1 when treating both sides as offending, aside), it just depends on a series of judgments (as many rulings to) which I disagree with. I ask again - what's wrong with Law 23? There's a solid reason to adjust. 12A1 only applies when there is no other solid reason to adjust.

[bluejak]

Ok. The revoke was ruled without the TD being called, that's true, and certainly a mistake by the declarer. In effect the defender ruled her own card as a major penalty card and left it face up on the table.

 

Now let's consider Law 50D1A. This is a Law about the disposition of a major penalty card. It applies whether the TD is called or not. It was breached. What action are you going to take against the offending side for breaching it?

[VixTD]

12B1 is never a reason to adjust, this is well established. It really is a basic error to think it can ever be a reason. So I think you need to know never to cite to 12B1 as your reason to adjust.

You keep saying this, and calling it "unfortunate", but how was this established, where and by whom? I agree with you that it would be nice if we could find a law that explicitly permits a split score here, but I'm not sure we can.

 

What's wrong with Law 23?

This just tells you to award an adjusted score "if the offender could have known (etc.)". It doesn't make any mention of non-balancing scores.

 

But even if we were in 12C1b territory, in 2007 we stopped the practice of just giving the table score to the wild/erroneous side. Rather what you have to do these days is grant the adjustment for the thing you are adjusting for, and then separately assess the cost of the subsequent error/wildness.

I'm aware of that, I was just assuming that the wild or gambling (in)action (the failure to call the director) cost NS the entire score for the contract plus that for the undertrick(s), so I was just "undoing" that part of the adjustment for them.

[iviehoff]

Now let's consider Law 50D1A. This is a Law about the disposition of a major penalty card. It applies whether the TD is called or not. It was breached. What action are you going to take against the offending side for breaching it?

There is a specific law on what one should do when that breach occurs, it is L 52. But we have been unable to agree on what L 52 means (the word "accept" is especially problematic - does it mean "no further rectification"? does it mean this is no longer deemed a revoke?) or make it consistent with the laws on revokes (is this still a revoke? does "accept"-ance mean it established? does "accept"-ance limit declarer's right to draw attention to an unestablished revoke and see it corrected? does L 64C apply?). These issues have been much discussed above. A fallback option is to apply L 23. A fallback fallback option is to apply L 12A1.

[pran]

Ok. The revoke was ruled without the TD being called, that's true, and certainly a mistake by the declarer. In effect the defender ruled her own card as a major penalty card and left it face up on the table.

 

Now let's consider Law 50D1A. This is a Law about the disposition of a major penalty card. It applies whether the TD is called or not. It was breached. What action are you going to take against the offending side for breaching it?

Law 50D1a is not the only law that is relevant here. We have also Law 11A which is equally important.

 

The Director should judge if any side, whether offending (Law 50) or non-offending (Law 11), has gained improperly from irregularities and if so adjust the score on the board so that such gain is removed.

 

This may very well result in a split score, and this is fully justified by Laws 12A3, 12C1a and 12C1f

 

But just to avoid any misunderstanding from bluejak: The adjusted scores must of course be assigned for cause and not for relationship or other irrelevant reasons.

[blackshoe]

I can't recall anyone ever using SEWoG to refer to anything other than bridge decisions, not legal decisions. I admit that there's nothing in the Laws that supports this restriction, but it's just not how I think anyone has ever understood that Law to be used.

A revoke would be treated as a SEWoG, wouldn't it? That's an accidental failure to follow the rules which is likely to damage one's own side. It seems to me that not calling the director in this situation is a more serious error, because it's an intentional breach of the rules.

A revoke is a serious error, yes, and it will, I think, rarely be related to the original irregularity. Failing to call the director may also be viewed as a serious error, but it is certainly not unrelated to the original irregularity. So I do not think you can compare the two. Also, like Barry (if I understand him) I don't think that "SE" refers to a decision not to call the director, rather it refers to decisions about the bidding or play of the hand. To top it off, I'd say that "intentional breach of the rules" is often an overbid — rather more likely, it seems to me, is that it just didn't occur to the players concerned that they needed to call the TD, at least in the club games in which I play. Of course, the TD can and probably should, in such cases, ask each player why he didn't call at the proper time.

[blackshoe]

It might help if someone would give a ruling in this format:

 

1. List the facts obtained by the TD's investigation.

2. List any assumptions made in making the ruling. Call this "director's opinions" if you like.

3. List the relevant laws.

4. State the ruling.

[jallerton]

Redress is denied for wild and/or gambling actions irrespective of whether these actions are "unrelated to infraction".

[blackshoe]

Redress is denied for wild and/or gambling actions irrespective of whether these actions are "unrelated to infraction".

True. So?

[iviehoff]

A revoke is a serious error, yes, and it will, I think, rarely be related to the original irregularity.

But a revoke comprising failing to play a penalty card is plainly of a piece with the earlier irregularity of "volunteering" a penalty card to correct an unestablished revoke without calling the director.

[blackshoe]

But a revoke comprising failing to play a penalty card is plainly of a piece with the earlier irregularity of "volunteering" a penalty card to correct an unestablished revoke without calling the director.

I don't know what this means.

[iviehoff]

(L23) is just tells you to award an adjusted score "if the offender could have known (etc.)". It doesn't make any mention of non-balancing scores.

Indeed not, and no other law empowering an adjustment for an infraction will do so either, eg 64C, 12A. But it is a relevant empowerment to adjust the score, and before we do any adjusting we need such an empowerment. So if we find a specific law that gives us empowerment to adjust the score, we can proceed to adjust and we needn't, indeed shouldn't, use L12A. Deciding whether to give a split (ie non-balancing) adjustment is a separate issue that arises once we have found empowerment to adjust the score. There is an essay on when to split the score in the EBU White Book at para 12.1.3.

 

So why is 12B not empowerment to adjust? 12C tells us when and how to adjust. It starts "When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score..." What does it mean by "empowered", a word I have been using a lot? What it means is the following: if you look around at various irregularities defined in the laws, in several places we see a specific empowerment wording that empowers adjustment to rectify that irregularity. For example, the final wording of L 13A (to find the closest case) is "...the director may award an adjusted score." They all look like that. 13A is an example of a law that empowers adjustment. This is what is absent from L12B, which is why 12B is not a law that empowers adjustment. 12B does indeed tell us what "damage" is, and tells us to adjust to "redress damage". So we will not adjust, even if empowered to do so by another law, unless there is in fact damage, as defined by 12B. So 12B sometimes stops us adjusting even when empowered elsewhere. But it is not a fundamental grounds to adjust, because it lacks that empowerment wording. Each irregularity has its own rectification, which may or may not include adjusting. If 12B was a generic empowerment to adjust for damage in any irregularity, we wouldn't need all that. Blackshoe told you just the same. Bluejak has frequently reminded us that just because law 12B tells us that the objective of adjustment is to redress damage, that we should therefore adjust according to 12B1 every time there is damage, rather we must follow the rectification in the law specific to the irregularity that has occurred. I really do not think this is controversial, but it is a common error.

[iviehoff]

I don't know what this means.

Let me try again.

 

(1) The original irregularity was the action by the defender of correcting his unestablished revoke and placing the revoke card face up on the table as a (presumed) penalty card, irregular only because he did so without calling the director and thus in the absence of the recitations which would have said what must happen with a penalty card.

(2) The subsequent irregularity was failing to play the penalty card, which, as you correctly told me, though it took me time to get it, is a revoke.

(3) These two matters are plainly related.

 

You said that that a revoke will rarely be related to an original irregularity, which as a general point is perfectly fine, especially because it admits the possibility of an exception. But in this case we do in fact have a revoke (the second irregularity) that is related to the original irregularity, we do in fact have that rare exception.

[VixTD]

Indeed not, and no other law empowering an adjustment for an infraction will do so either, eg 64C, 12A. But it is a relevant empowerment to adjust the score, and before we do any adjusting we need such an empowerment. So if we find a specific law that gives us empowerment to adjust the score, we can proceed to adjust and we needn't, indeed shouldn't, use L12A. Deciding whether to give a split (ie non-balancing) adjustment is a separate issue that arises once we have found empowerment to adjust the score.

Sorry, Iviehoff, I thought the question you had posed was about how to justify awarding specifically a non-balancing score, rather than how to justify adjusting the score at all.

 

Law 23 looks OK, except that a pedant might argue that since both sides are offending in failing to call the TD then the phrase "could have been aware

at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side" cannot apply, as there is no non-offending side.