Eight Straight

[campboy]

A player who commits an infraction which leads to a law-23 adjustment is not being given that adjustment because he could have known. He is being given the adjustment because the NOS were damaged.

 

The only alternative to the current law 23 would be one which came into force even if the player could not have known. The lawmakers feel, however, that there should be no redress for "rub of the green", that is to say unforeseeable benefits of an infraction.

 

The purpose here is to restore equity, not to punish the player who committed the irregularity and certainly not to treat him as a cheat. If we know someone is cheating he will get rather more than an adjusted score!

[sailoranch]

Just a question. What constitutes "misinformation" in Law 21? It seems like South's decoration pass card fooled West and would be misinformation in the normal sense of the word. But is legal misinformation limited to answers about agreements and such?

[barmar]

I believe the "misinformation" in Law 21 is generally intended to refer to the alerts and explanations required by Law 20.

 

However, Law 20 also talks about reviews of the auction. If an opponent is restating the auction, and makes a mistake in this, that might also constitute misinformation. If this is the case, we could treat the bidding cards sitting on the table as analogous, and conclude that having the wrong cards on the table is equivalent to an incorrect review of the auction.

[gordontd]

Just a question. What constitutes "misinformation" in Law 21? It seems like South's decoration pass card fooled West and would be misinformation in the normal sense of the word. But is legal misinformation limited to answers about agreements and such?

I once made a ruling in this sort of situation based on the left-over bid on the table constituting misinformation. I later discussed it with the Chief TD of the WBF, and he agreed that this was a reasonable approach.