Self inflicted damage...

[szgyula]

The same thing is true of ordinary misdefense, forget about irregularities. If good defense holds the opponents to 8 tricks, while poor defense allows them to make 9 tricks, the punishment for making poor defense depends on whether they bid 2NT (1 IMP) or 3NT (8 or 10 IMPs).

That is an absolutely valid point. This is one of the reasons a mixed (very good players to beginners) pairs event will not tell you which is the best pair, especially in IMP. The disagreement is over the importance of the irregularity. Some people take the position that the irregularity is part of the game just like rare stupid mistakes by the opponents that you benefit from. Others believe that irregularities must lead to rectification. This is a matter of opinion and personal preference. It is clear that in certain cases (SEWoG) the laws agree with the former approach. May be a more balanced approach might be eventually entertained. May be not.

[blackshoe]

"Irregularities must lead to rectification" is an overbid.

 

Law 84: Rulings On Agreed Facts

When the Director is called to rule on a point of law or regulation, and the facts are agreed, he rules as follows:

A. No Rectification

If no rectification is prescribed by law, and there is no occasion for him to exercise his discretionary powers, he directs the players to proceed with the auction or play.

B. Law Provides Rectification

If the case is clearly covered by a law that prescribes the rectification for the irregularity, he determines that rectification and ensures that it is implemented.

C. Player’sOption

If a law gives a player a choice of rectification, the Director explains the options and sees that the choice is made and implemented.

D. Director’sOption

The Director rules any doubtful point in favor of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgment it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these Laws provide no rectification, he adjusts the score (see Law 12).

Clearly, unless the laws specify a rectification willy-nilly, irregularities lead to rectification only if the NOS was actually or probably damaged (in the director's view) by the irregularity.

[Vampyr]

"Irregularities must lead to rectification" is an overbid.

 

 

Clearly, unless the laws specify a rectification willy-nilly, irregularities lead to rectification only if the NOS was actually or probably damaged (in the director's view) by the irregularity.

 

So I think that the WB is incorrect and needs to be changed.

[RMB1]

So I think that the WB is incorrect and needs to be changed.

What should be changed?

[Vampyr]

What should be changed?

 

The fact that a pair can be assigned a score for defending their opponents' illegal contract (unless it is a better score than they would have had without the infraction). This does not seem to be supported by L12. In the original case, the revoke should result in an overtrick in the legal contract.

 

To do otherwise is to punish players who revoke, or lead out of turn or whatever, because their opponents commit an infraction. The only other option is to assign (the worst one of) a legal contract before play begins, so that there is a level playing field.

[RMB1]

To do otherwise is to punish players who revoke, or lead out of turn or whatever, because their opponents commit an infraction. The only other option is to assign (the worst one of) a legal contract before play begins, so that there is a level playing field.

 

But Law 12C1(b) says that we cannot ignore self-inflicted damage.

[Vampyr]

But Law 12C1(b) says that we cannot ignore self-inflicted damage.

 

True, but the opponents' reaching an illegal contract was not self-inflicted.

 

This reminds me of the now-discredited "rub of the green" principle whereby the NOS's damage was calculated after the infraction instead of after the score was tallied. So if the illegal contract was very much odds-against but made, the result was kept for the NOS because their "equity" was increased when the illegal contract was bid.

[lamford]

True, but the opponents' reaching an illegal contract was not self-inflicted.

 

This reminds me of the now-discredited "rub of the green" principle whereby the NOS's damage was calculated after the infraction instead of after the score was tallied. So if the illegal contract was very much odds-against but made, the result was kept for the NOS because their "equity" was increased when the illegal contract was bid.

I recall a WB comment that a serious error did not include a defensive error against a contract that one should not have been defending, but cannot (quickly) find that in the current edition. Does anyone know when and if it was removed and why?

[RMB1]

I recall a WB comment that a serious error did not include a defensive error against a contract that one should not have been defending, but cannot (quickly) find that in the current edition. Does anyone know when and if it was removed and why?

 

It has been replaced by "An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently." (WB 8.12.5.3)

 

But there is also

 

8.12.5.4 ‘Unrelated to the Infraction’

It can be argued that if the final contract is only reached as the consequence of an infraction then any error in the play or defence must be related to it and cannot be penalised. This is considered too extreme a view and a serious error has to be more directly related to the infraction to be given redress. Note that a wild or gambling action does not need to be related to the infraction.

 

So the current EBU position is that it does not rule out the application of Law 12C1(b) for an error in defending a contract reached illegally.