Comparable Call

[barmar]

I'll try another analogy?

 

What caused all the deaths on the Titanic? Was it hitting the iceberg, or the lack of sufficient lifeboats?

 

Obviously, if the collision hadn't occurred in the first place, there wouldn't have been any deaths. But even with the collision, if they had enough lifeboats, most of those lives would have been saved.

 

Both the collision and missing lifeboats contributed to the loss of life, but if you had to give a specific cause, which would it be?

[Cyberyeti]

The infraction, in Cyberyeti's case, caused the good result. Without it, the pair would (presumably) have reached the 5-4 spade fit. The decision to bid 3NT was because the player had to select the final contract. "Because", in this context, is equivalent to "arising from". With some partners, I could elect to bid 3NT as well, but then I think that the TD should adjust as I "could have been aware" that silencing the ox opposite from correcting to 4S "could well damage" the NOS. The beauty of 12B1, applied correctly, is there is no need to decide whether something was an accident or deliberate cheating.

 

Could well damage should imply has a decent chance of damaging, there was a <1% chance that this would damage opps (it needed the 4-0 offside break and some other miracles and a good view or two), I don't think the opener would have seen it coming that it could conceivably have damaged the opps.

[blackshoe]

Poor analogy. Maybe it didn't cause the joyride but it most certainly invited it.

 

I don't know about your jurisdiction but where I live you would be held (at least partly) responsible for any damage from this joyride.

 

I left my keys in my car for a couple of days. Sitting on the front seat. I have a spare set, and used that. During those days the car was either locked in my garage, moving with me driving, or parked in a parking lot with the doors locked. Are you claiming that if someone broke into my garage or broke into the car in a parking lot and "took the car for a joyride" I would be held to have "invited" the theft? The mind boggles. :(

[pran]

I left my keys in my car for a couple of days. Sitting on the front seat. I have a spare set, and used that. During those days the car was either locked in my garage, moving with me driving, or parked in a parking lot with the doors locked. Are you claiming that if someone broke into my garage or broke into the car in a parking lot and "took the car for a joyride" I would be held to have "invited" the theft? The mind boggles. :(

The keys were still kept under lock, weren't they?

[weejonnie]

Presumably we are looking at "assistance gained through the infraction".

 

It seems quite clear from law 12 that if there is a prescribed rectification then the director cannot adjust the score, so only in cases where an adjusted score can be awarded in the laws, is the director allowed to do so.

 

Which leaves us onto 23C (presumably)

 

If following the substitution of a comparable call [see Laws 27B1(b), 30B1(b)(ii), 31A2(a) and

32A2(a)] the Director judges at the end of the play that without the assistance gained through

the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the

non‐offending side is damaged, he shall award an adjusted score [see Law 12C1(b)].

 

So: did RR actually gain from the infraction. Instead of applying his best (or whatever) bridge technique he was forced, by the rectification applied following the infraction, to have a wild guess as to the final contract. I do not really regard that as assistance. A serendipitous outcome? Yes! Assistance? No!

 

I think that I have already noted that after rectification a side may make whatever call (within limits) even if they appear to gain from it. The rectification for the COOT is that RR must either make a comparable call or his partner will be silenced.

[pran]

I'll try another analogy?

 

What caused all the deaths on the Titanic? Was it hitting the iceberg, or the lack of sufficient lifeboats?

 

Obviously, if the collision hadn't occurred in the first place, there wouldn't have been any deaths. But even with the collision, if they had enough lifeboats, most of those lives would have been saved.

 

Both the collision and missing lifeboats contributed to the loss of life, but if you had to give a specific cause, which would it be?

There is (almost) never a single cause for a disaster and many of the contributing circumstances have been improved for better safety since then.

 

Just consider (and the list is not complete):

Had the radio operator on SS Californian not been requested by Titanic to "shut up - you disturb me" he would most likely have listened and eventually received the CQD calls from Titanic - - -.

(CQD was the distress signal at the time but SOS was just established to become the new universal distress signal.

Titanic was probably the first ship in distress to send SOS which they did later during their watch.)

 

Had the crew member on SS Californian who was keen on radio known how to start up the radio receiver he would certainly have received the CQD, he did try - - -.

Had the officers on SS Californian realized that the flares they observed was for emergency and not for fun - - -.

Had the ship builders had access to ample steel quality for Titanic - - -

 

And finally:

Titanic could survive complete destruction of the first four sections of the ship but was doomed when the fifth section became flooded.

Had they (deliberately) hit the Iceberg head on instead of attempting to avoid the collision by turning away then Titanic would not have sunk.

 

So what did cause the disaster?

[sanst]

Here we are again, Lamford dissecting the laws to a point that was never intended by its makers. But he seems to forget Law 12A1, which allows the TD to award an AS if the Laws do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed. In this case the Laws do prescribe a rectification, there is also 12B2, it’s not a 23 case since it’s not a comparable call, so the result stands. And the Titanic sank as the result of a combination of causes, as is the case in most disasters.

[lamford]

Could well damage should imply has a decent chance of damaging, there was a <1% chance that this would damage opps

There are plenty of partners I have where it could well damage the opponents for me to play 3NT rather than my partner to play 4S, regardless of the combined hands. If you silence your partner, you could always have been aware that it could gain. But, I submit, you don't actually need to be aware. You just need to benefit from the infraction.

[lamford]

Here we are again, Lamford dissecting the laws to a point that was never intended by its makers. But he seems to forget Law 12A1, which allows the TD to award an AS if the Laws do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed. In this case the Laws do prescribe a rectification, there is also 12B2, it’s not a 23 case since it’s not a comparable call, so the result stands. And the Titanic sank as the result of a combination of causes, as is the case in most disasters.

I think it is barmar who is attempting to dissect the difference between "because" and "arising from" which was never intended by the Lawmakers. I agree that none of the other laws allows an adjustment in this case. However Law 12B is very clearly written and does allow an adjustment. And how do you know what the Lawmakers intended?

[lamford]

It seems quite clear from law 12 that if there is a prescribed rectification then the director cannot adjust the score

It seems quite clear that you have not read law 12.

[weejonnie]

It seems quite clear that you have not read law 12.

2. 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.

 

I think this is pretty conclusive: where there is rectification specified under the laws the director cannot use his rights to offer an adjusted score.

[lamford]

2. 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.

 

I think this is pretty conclusive: where there is rectification specified under the laws the director cannot use his rights to offer an adjusted score.

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment

1. The objective of 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. 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.

 

I think this is pretty conclusive: where there is rectification specified under the laws and after application of that the innocent side still obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred, then the TD redresses the damage caused to the non-offending side.

 

What you quoted does not prevent the TD awarding an adjusted score. It prevents the TD awarding an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification was unduly severe (or advantageous) to either side. The adjusted score in this thread is on the grounds that the NOS still suffered from the infraction after the rectification took place.

[barmar]

"The objective of score adjustment" is just describing a general philosophy. It's not stating that a score adjustment should be made whenever damage exists.

 

Various laws then describe specific cases where adjustments should be made. That's when you take this "objective" into consideration.

[pran]

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment

1. The objective of 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. 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.

 

I think this is pretty conclusive: where there is rectification specified under the laws and after application of that the innocent side still obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred, then the TD redresses the damage caused to the non-offending side.

 

What you quoted does not prevent the TD awarding an adjusted score. It prevents the TD awarding an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification was unduly severe (or advantageous) to either side. The adjusted score in this thread is on the grounds that the NOS still suffered from the infraction after the rectification took place.

Various laws include a "safety catch" for the possible situation that the rectification provided results in insufficient compensation for the damage to the non-offending side. (See for example Law 64C)

 

Law 12B2 explicitly forbids such adjustment whenever a law provides a specific rectification with no such "safety catch".

The situation in then that the rectification provided is "unduly severe to the non-offending side", possibly also "unduly advantageous to the offending side".

[lamford]

Law 12B2 explicitly forbids such adjustment whenever a law provides a specific rectification with no such "safety catch".

The situation in then that the rectification provided is "unduly severe to the non-offending side", possibly also "unduly advantageous to the offending side".

No. Law 12B2 prevents the TD adjusting because the rectification is unduly severe or advantageous. Law 12B1 then allows an adjustment because the NOS gets a worse result than without the infraction. That is the "safety catch".

[lamford]

"The objective of score adjustment" is just describing a general philosophy. It's not stating that a score adjustment should be made whenever damage exists.

 

Various laws then describe specific cases where adjustments should be made. That's when you take this "objective" into consideration.

It seems a very specific law to me. What is the point of saying when "damage exists" if TDs are not expected to adjust when it does? The objective is clearly stated: to put the NOS back in at least the same position as if the infraction had not occurred. If it was just a general philosophy it would be part of the introduction, along with the definitions of "may", "should", "must", etc.

 

More importantly, what is the logic of not adjusting when the NOS is damaged?

[pran]

Various laws include a "safety catch" for the possible situation that the rectification provided results in insufficient compensation for the damage to the non-offending side. (See for example Law 64C)

 

Law 12B2 explicitly forbids such adjustment whenever a law provides a specific rectification with no such "safety catch".

The situation in then that the rectification provided is "unduly severe to the non-offending side", possibly also "unduly advantageous to the offending side".

 

No. Law 12B2 prevents the TD adjusting because the rectification is unduly severe or advantageous. Law 12B1 then allows an adjustment because the NOS gets a worse result than without the infraction. That is the "safety catch".

 

Law 12B1 does not allow the Director to award an adjusted score, this right is given the Director in Law 12A.

 

Law 12B1 only expresses in general terms how the Director shall decide the size of adjustment, and as already said: Law 12B2 explicitly forbids the Director "overriding" a specific rectification provided in the laws

 

(On a point of order: I do not agree with this law; I would have preferred law 12B2 to say: "...on the ground that the rectification is unduly severe to the offending side or unduly advantageous to the non-offending side")

[lamford]

(On a point of order: I do not agree with this law; I would have preferred law 12B2 to say: "...on the ground that the rectification is unduly severe to the offending side or unduly advantageous to the non-offending side")

I agree entirely. Also there is no justification for "could have been aware" in Law 73C. Any infraction "could well damage" the non-offending side. How and why may not be foreseeable.

[blackshoe]

I think it is barmar who is attempting to dissect the difference between "because" and "arising from" which was never intended by the Lawmakers. I agree that none of the other laws allows an adjustment in this case. However Law 12B is very clearly written and does allow an adjustment. And how do you know what the Lawmakers intended?

How do you?

[blackshoe]

No. Law 12B2 prevents the TD adjusting because the rectification is unduly severe or advantageous. Law 12B1 then allows an adjustment because the NOS gets a worse result than without the infraction. That is the "safety catch".

Seems to me that "worse result" here refers to the table result, not the result after director applies the appropriate rectification.

[pran]

Seems to me that "worse result" here refers to the table result, not the result after director applies the appropriate rectification.

(lamford wrote: "Law 12B1 then allows an adjustment because the NOS gets a worse result than without the infraction.")

 

"worse result" is not a question when a specific rectification is provided in the laws for an irregularity.

See my #42 above.

 

Once again:

Law 12B1 does not allow the Director to award an adjusted score, this right is given the Director in Law 12A.

Law 12B1 only expresses in general terms how the Director shall decide the size of adjustment, and (as already said):

Law 12B2 explicitly forbids the Director "overriding" a specific rectification provided in the laws

 

(The fact that I disagree with Law 12B2 is irrelevant here:)

[lamford]

How do you?

I don't - which is why I was interpreting it literally.

[lamford]

Seems to me that "worse result" here refers to the table result, not the result after director applies the appropriate rectification.

That is inconsistent with the objective of score adjustment which is to remove any advantage gained by an infraction.

[jhenrikj]

First of all, 10C4 applies.: Subject to Law 16C2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to

make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit

through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 72C).

 

 

Second we know what the lawmakers intended since we have asked them and you are definitely not allowed to adjust on the basis of someone being lucky.

[barmar]

No. Law 12B2 prevents the TD adjusting because the rectification is unduly severe or advantageous. Law 12B1 then allows an adjustment because the NOS gets a worse result than without the infraction. That is the "safety catch".

What's thd difference between being unduly advantageous to the offending side and not restoring equity?

 

Why would the Law on revokes need an explicit clause that says that the TD can adjust if the automatic transfer doesn't make up for the damage, if 12B1 already allows this?

 

Like I said before, "objective of score adjustment" is not a blanket authorization to adjust whenever there's damage. Rather, it's explaining that when a Law authorizes you to adjust, this is the objective you try to reach in deciding what to adjust to.