Insufficient - then Conventional

[aguahombre]

My problem is with the wording: a sentence that has two 'could' phrases in it gives complete freedom to the director in IB cases. It might as well say that the Director should adjust if he thinks it is right to do so.

 

If the intent, as seems both likely and reasonable, is to adjust when a player successfully reaches a contract that otherwise would be unlikely without the IB, then say that. The lawmakers have removed intent and replaced it possible intent, because burden of proof is so difficult. I think they should remove worrying about intent completely.

Good read and valid points. I believe they have removed worry about the intent of the particular player adequately enough to stay away from accusing; and that is fine with me. But, if L23 were changed to your specifications, that would be good also.

[Vampyr]

Ahh, you're saying that it has always been a bad law, we never should have allowed correcting an IB. That's a reasonable position to take.

 

Not allow correcting an IB, and just cancel the board? This doesn't work, because as others have noted, if the penalty is, say, 40% a player might decide that this is a very reasonable tactic when Meckwell come to their table.

[blackshoe]

Not allow correcting an IB, and just cancel the board? This doesn't work, because as others have noted, if the penalty is, say, 40% a player might decide that this is a very reasonable tactic when Meckwell come to their table.

That action, if found to be deliberate, would result in a procedural or disciplinary penalty in addition to the adjustment.

[gnasher]

My post #30 was a response to paulg's #6 and your #20, which seemed to be saying that Law 23 (almost?) always applies. My response was that if that's the case, the law should be changed to simply award an ArtAS in all IB cases. That is where 60-40 came from.

My suggestion was that an adjustment should be made under Law 23 if, and only if, there was damage. The adjusted score would generally be a real bridge score, intended to restore equity.

 

Your suggestion appears to be that there should be an adjustment even when there is no damage. The adjusted score would always be a fixed artificial score, independent of the amount of any damage, and therefore not intended to restore equity.

 

When you linked my suggestion to yours using the words "if that's the case, the law should be changed to", you seemed to imply that your suggestion was equivalent to, as good as, or an improvement on my suggestion. I think that is obviously not true.

[blackshoe]

My suggestion was that an adjustment should be made under Law 23 if, and only if, there was damage. The adjusted score would generally be a real bridge score, intended to restore equity.

 

Your suggestion appears to be that there should be an adjustment even when there is no damage. The adjusted score would always be a fixed artificial score, independent of the amount of any damage, and therefore not intended to restore equity.

 

When you linked my suggestion to yours using the words "if that's the case, the law should be changed to", you seemed to imply that your suggestion was equivalent to, as good as, or an improvement on my suggestion. I think that is obviously not true.

The question of damage is not the only question that needs to be answered affirmatively in applying Law 23. There is also the question of whether the player "could well have known", etcetera, and for that matter the question just what, exactly, that means.

 

I was reacting to what I perceived as "if it makes an IB, we need Law 23 to shoot it, so apply Law 23 and shoot it".

[aguahombre]

When we apply L23, if we apply L23, we have already determined damage. The damage is that the infraction worked to the OS advantage OR the damage is that if the infraction had not occured a more favorable result for the opponents could well have been attained.

 

Even if we use SEWog and make the NOS keep their score, a split would be based on the rest of the field being damaged.

 

My point is: we don't have to first determine there was damage and then consider L23. We can determine from L23 the damage, and then apply it.

[pran]

When we apply L23, if we apply L23, we have already determined damage. The damage is that the infraction worked to the OS advantage OR the damage is that if the infraction had not occured a more favorable result for the opponents could well have been attained.

 

Even if we use SEWog and make the NOS keep their score, a split would be based on the rest of the field being damaged.

 

My point is: we don't have to first determine there was damage and then consider L23. We can determine from L23 the damage, and then apply it.

There is a well established principle that rulings shall never be based on the effect of irregularities on the rest of the field.

[gnasher]

I was reacting to what I perceived as "if it makes an IB, we need Law 23 to shoot it, so apply Law 23 and shoot it".

Then your perception was competely wrong.

[aguahombre]

There is a well established principle that rulings shall never be based on the effect of irregularities on the rest of the field.

True, but if the damage is there and we don't adjust for the offending side because the NOS committed a greater, more costly error unrelated to the offense, we damage the rest of the field and should have applied L23.

[blackshoe]

Then your perception was competely wrong.

Fair enough. Shall I commit seppuku?

[blackshoe]

When we apply L23, if we apply L23, we have already determined damage. The damage is that the infraction worked to the OS advantage OR the damage is that if the infraction had not occured a more favorable result for the opponents could well have been attained.

 

Even if we use SEWog and make the NOS keep their score, a split would be based on the rest of the field being damaged.

 

My point is: we don't have to first determine there was damage and then consider L23. We can determine from L23 the damage, and then apply it.

Damage is defined as the difference between the score the NOS obtained at the table and the score they would have obtained had there been no infraction. So I disagree with your first paragraph.

 

If you split the score because of a SEWoG, you give the NOS the adjusted score they would have received without the SEWoG less the amount of damage they inflicted on themselves. It has nothing to do with the rest of the field.

 

You first determine if this is one of the rare cases where Law 23 applies at all. If it does (the offender "could well have known" etc.) "the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity". The amount of damage, and hence the actual adjusted score, is determined in accordance with Law 12.

[gnasher]

Fair enough. Shall I commit seppuku?

I think that would be an unnecessary overreaction. But maybe you should bear in mind the suggestion you made to me in post no 45.

[pran]

True, but if the damage is there and we don't adjust for the offending side because the NOS committed a greater, more costly error unrelated to the offense, we damage the rest of the field and should have applied L23.

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*.

 

* as, for example, by partner’s enforced pass.

Nothing in this law caters for the rest of the field ("the non-offending side" refers solely to offender's opponents at the table).

[blackshoe]

I think that would be an unnecessary overreaction. But maybe you should bear in mind the suggestion you made to me in post no 45.

Touché. B-)

[Zelandakh]

Ahh, you're saying that it has always been a bad law, we never should have allowed correcting an IB. That's a reasonable position to take.

Not exactly. I am saying that the adaption of the law for spoken bidding to the regulations for bidding boxes is bad. In the same way as we differentiate between a card deliberately played and accidentally exposed, we can easily do the same for bids made. And doing so would make the regulations clearer, both for players and directors, as well as avoiding some randomised results from a partner being silenced.

[blackshoe]

Something like "take the bid card out of the bidding box, visually confirm that it is in fact the card you want, and then place it on the table. If the 'wrong' card then somehow gets on the table, too bad, you're stuck with that call"?

[Zelandakh]

Something like "take the bid card out of the bidding box, visually confirm that it is in fact the card you want, and then place it on the table. If the 'wrong' card then somehow gets on the table, too bad, you're stuck with that call"?

You might want to refer back to the suggestion Ed. Does the situation you describe sound like the card was deliberately placed on the table?

[blackshoe]

I'm trying to understand where you're going with this. Clearly I don't. Enlighten me. :unsure:

[Zelandakh]

I'm trying to understand where you're going with this. Clearly I don't. Enlighten me. :unsure:

Let me quote back my previous post then:

I think the IB law/regulation should read that the bid cannot be corrected once the card has been placed on the table deliberately. The call can be changed between drawing it and it being deliberately placed but the UI laws then apply. Simple, clear and encourages players to pay attention while still catering to mispulls, sticky cards, dropped cards, etc.

 

Note the word deliberately. Thus your scenario where the wrong card accidentally arrived on the table (dropped or whatever) would still be within the "correction period". The last sentence in the quoted post was a reference to this.

[blackshoe]

Okay, I see it. Probably a good change, but until it happens we're stuck with what we have.