Could he have known ...

[lamford]

Law 12A1 grants an authorization, but only if the infraction in question is not covered by any Law.

That is not so. It is when the TD judges that the Laws do not prescribe rectification for the particular type of violation. In this case the rectification was hugely disadvantageous to EW. Therefore damage exists as clarified in 12B.

[blackshoe]

That is not so. It is when the TD judges that the Laws do not prescribe rectification for the particular type of violation. In this case the rectification was hugely disadvantageous to EW. Therefore damage exists as clarified in 12B.

Hm.

Law 12B2: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

Your first sentence addresses a case where the laws do not prescribe rectification. Your second sentence describes a case where they do. In the latter case, 12B2 would seem to apply.

[barmar]

Right. There are basically 2 cases:

 

1. An infraction occurs, and the Laws prescribe a rectification. Implement that rectification as specified, regardless of whether it restores equity. This doesn't even require that the infraction cause damage (e.g. revokes are often inconsequential, but the NOS still gets tricks transferred as specified).

 

2. An infraction occurs, and the Laws don't prescribe a specific rectification. If the NOS is damaged, adjust the score to restore equity.

 

Independent of this, there are possibilities of procedural or disciplinary penalties against the offender. This might mitigate some of the gain they achieved if the rectification didn't restore equity, although the NOS doesn't gain anything on their side.

[lamford]

Hm.

 

Your first sentence addresses a case where the laws do not prescribe rectification. Your second sentence describes a case where they do. In the latter case, 12B2 would seem to apply.

I think in this case he is not awarding adjusted score for that reason. The rectification itself is not unduly severe to EW, in that South was silenced and he could have chosen to pass. But it did not permit normal play of the board which would be South pulling a penalty double of 1NT to 2D. I believe under the old laws North would not have been able to substitute a penalty double when his BOOT silenced his partner. Is it the intention of the lawmakers to permit him to do so now?

[sanst]

Is it the intention of the lawmakers to permit him to do so now?

I don't think so, otherwise they would have changed Law 12B accordingly. That states that you give an AS to remove the advantage gained by an infraction. It looks like an oversight to me that the TD can correct in case of a comparable call, but not in case of a forced pass that damages the NOS.

[lamford]

I don't think so, otherwise they would have changed Law 12B accordingly. That states that you give an AS to remove the advantage gained by an infraction. It looks like an oversight to me that the TD can correct in case of a comparable call, but not in case of a forced pass that damages the NOS.

And the interpretation of the laws is stated to be in the hands of the TDs who should apply common sense. After all the laws are so full of inconsistencies ...

[VixTD]

You are all confusing this much earlier law with Law 72C which is to prevent coffee-housing and also covers all irregularities (not all of which are infractions) where the requirement "could have been aware" is present. Law 12B is absolutely clear and unequivocal. If there is an infraction and the non-offending side loses out you adjust. What else is Law 12B for?

Law 12B tells the director or appeals committee that when they are empowered by the laws to award an adjusted score the intention of the exercise is to remove any advantage gained by the offending side through the infraction. It's not really a law, it's just an expression of intent. It doesn't say: "Whenever a player gains from an infraction the TD must award an adjusted score that takes away the advantage". This is how you seem to interpret it. It doesn't even say: "When the TD awards an adjusted score they must take away any advantage".

 

It's no good asking me why the laws are worded as they are - I would have written them differently, and they don't always make perfect sense, but we have to live with them, or all join the Guthrie Club for Law Reform, or something.

[blackshoe]

It's not really a law, it's just an expression of intent.

It's a law.

[barmar]

I think in this case he is not awarding adjusted score for that reason. The rectification itself is not unduly severe to EW, in that South was silenced and he could have chosen to pass. But it did not permit normal play of the board which would be South pulling a penalty double of 1NT to 2D.

I don't think that's what's meant by not permitting normal play of the board. Otherwise, all rectifications that put restrictions on a player's actions (e.g. penalty cards, UI) would fit that criteria, and we'd have to adjust.

[lamford]

I don't think that's what's meant by not permitting normal play of the board. Otherwise, all rectifications that put restrictions on a player's actions (e.g. penalty cards, UI) would fit that criteria, and we'd have to adjust.

So what would you say was meant by "not permitting normal play of the board?"

[lamford]

Law 12B tells the director or appeals committee that when they are empowered by the laws to award an adjusted score the intention of the exercise is to remove any advantage gained by the offending side through the infraction.

If Law 12B is not a law, why does it not go in the glossary or definitions? There is no mention of "being empowered by the laws to award an adjusted score". Law 12B says when damage exists. Damage exists here. Therefore the TD (or AC) adjusts.

[cherdano]

What is the logic in allowing someone to replace a BOOT with double, silencing his partner, but not allowing someone to replace an IB with a double, silencing his partner?

That's easy to answer. There are many situations where it would be obvious to a lot of players that they could gain from an IB followed by a penalty double. It takes Paul Lamford Charlie the Chimp to spot a situation where you could gain from a BOOT due to the possibility of making a penalty double.

[lamford]

That's easy to answer. There are many situations where it would be obvious to a lot of players that they could gain from an IB followed by a penalty double. It takes Paul Lamford Charlie the Chimp to spot a situation where you could gain from a BOOT due to the possibility of making a penalty double.

That is only because the comparable call is so new that people have not had a chance to pick up on the wheeze. Soon players will be alerting 1 level opening bids out of turn as "may contain an unbalanced 20-22 which wants to double 1NT". On those hands, the auction is about 78% to go Pass-Pass when nothing is lost so the methods are very sound, but possibly brown sticker. In addition the strong possibility of 20-22 unbalanced makes it more attractive for the dealer to respond light.

[blackshoe]

If Law 12B is not a law, why does it not go in the glossary or definitions?

I don't know about a glossary, but the definitions are explicitly part of the laws.

 

Law 12B says when damage exists. Damage exists here. Therefore the TD (or AC) adjusts.

Even if there's been no infraction?

[lamford]

Even if there's been no infraction?

No, only after an infraction. I agree this is a Law and it does not matter whether it is in the definitions. It says: "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred."

 

That law says when damage exists, so that is here. It does not require any awareness whatsoever of the possibility of gain. Are we able to adjust the score under Law 12B? Yes, of course - the first part of 12B specifies what the objective of score adjustment is. To take away a good result obtained by an infraction, whether the perpetrator could have been aware of the damage or not. Law 73C is, I submit, an additional provision when an irregularity gains, not when an infraction gains. I cannot see any other interpretation. Mind you the laws seem to use infraction and irregularity seemingly at random.

 

The TD can use: "On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B or on his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so".

[VixTD]

If Law 12B is not a law, why does it not go in the glossary or definitions? There is no mention of "being empowered by the laws to award an adjusted score". Law 12B says when damage exists. Damage exists here. Therefore the TD (or AC) adjusts.

It's not worded as a directive or instruction, so cannot be used as such. I could equally well ask why the law doesn't say "if a player is damaged as a result of an opponent's irregularity the director shall adjust the score to remove the damage", but it doesn't.

[barmar]

So what would you say was meant by "not permitting normal play of the board?"

There are some specific examples, like 15B2, where you're playing the wrong board and one of the players has already played that board. I can't find the law number at the moment, but I think there's another one where a pair is at the wrong table, they start bidding the hand, and the error is discovered, so the play is cancelled. When the correct pair is seated, we start the hand over, but if any of the calls are different we cancel it and award an adjusted score.

 

The general idea is that a board is unplayable when there's so much extraneous information that it would be ridiculous to try to play it. But if the Laws provide a rectification that doesn't include cancelling the board, that is the normal play of the board after the irregularity.

[axman]

So what would you say was meant by "not permitting normal play of the board?"

my understanding of normal play is that the board proceeds via bidding/play to scoring in accordance with law. iow when an infraction occurs where no remedy in law permits the playing of cards to proceed, the board can no longer be played normally.

[blackshoe]

I can't find the law number at the moment, but I think there's another one where a pair is at the wrong table, they start bidding the hand, and the error is discovered, so the play is cancelled. When the correct pair is seated, we start the hand over, but if any of the calls are different we cancel it and award an adjusted score.

I can't find it either. I thought it was part of Law 17 in the 2007 laws, but no. Perhaps you're thinking of the old 15C:

 

If, during the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round, he shall cancel the auction, ensure that the correct contestants are seated and that they are informed of their rights both now and at future rounds. A second auction begins. Players must repeat the calls they made previously. If any call differs in any way from the corresponding call in the first auction the Director shall cancel the board. Otherwise the auction and play continue normally. The Director may award a procedural penalty (and an adjusted score) if of the opinion that there has been a purposeful attempt by either side to preclude normal play of the board.

[pran]

I can't find it either. I thought it was part of Law 17 in the 2007 laws, but no. Perhaps you're thinking of the old 15C:

Law 15 B

[lamford]

my understanding of normal play is that the board proceeds via bidding/play to scoring in accordance with law. iow when an infraction occurs where no remedy in law permits the playing of cards to proceed, the board can no longer be played normally.

In the example quoted by axman and barmar where a pair has had a different auction on the first attempt to play the hand, the board can be played and scored normally, with the old auction being UI to the pair that heard it. However, as Pran says, Law 15B states that the board is cancelled for both sides. I am sure practice by TDs is to cancel the board once one call is different, but I cannot find that in the Laws. Can anyone else?

 

I also note: 12C1b The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred. So, in this example, the score of +800 was not possible without the infraction so does not meet this clause either.

[blackshoe]

Law 15 B

Perhaps. It looks like old 15C was moved into 15B, but there seemed to me to be some differences when I looked at it.

[pran]

Perhaps. It looks like old 15C was moved into 15B, but there seemed to me to be some differences when I looked at it.

The old 15C stated explicitly that the auction in progress should be cancelled, the players be (re-)seated correctly and that a new auction be started.

Then if any call during the new auction differed in any way from the corresponding call during the first (now cancelled) auction then the board must be cancelled.

 

The old 15B simply stated that a second play of a board that has already been played (incorrectly) by some player(s) must be cancelled for both sides.

[lamford]

The old 15C stated explicitly that the auction in progress should be cancelled, the players be (re-)seated correctly and that a new auction be started.

Then if any call during the new auction differed in any way from the corresponding call during the first (now cancelled) auction then the board must be cancelled.

 

The old 15B simply stated that a second play of a board that has already been played (incorrectly) by some player(s) must be cancelled for both sides.

Now it seems to say that if the board has been played before, the second attempt will be cancelled regardless!

[pran]

Now it seems to say that if the board has been played before, the second attempt will be cancelled regardless!

Precisesly! (The provisions in Law 15 are only relevant if the irregularity is discovered before play is completed.)

if one or more players at the table have previously played the board, with the correct opponents or otherwise, the board is cancelled for both his side and his opponents.

Also be aware that Law 15B only applies to pair and individual events – see Law 86B for team events.