Comparable Call

[lamford]

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.[/size]

Is there a WBFLC minute which clarifies that if an infraction gains, but the player could not have foreseen how it would gain, then there is no adjustment?

[jhenrikj]

Is there a WBFLC minute which clarifies that if an infraction gains, but the player could not have foreseen how it would gain, then there is no adjustment?

 

It's not the infraction that gains, it's subsequent actions. Those actions might be a consequence of the infraction but that is what 10C4 is about.

 

What you are saying is that for instance if my opponents get a MPC, and I choose one of my options and it turns out that another choosing another option might have worked out better I will be able to get an adjustment?

 

We do not need a WBFLC minute for everything. If the members of the WBFLC teach us something at international TD courses then that is how the law is supposed to be applied.

 

And also as other already has pointed out. Law 12B1 does not give you the right to adjust any score. Law 12A gives you the right to adjust the scores when either the law tells you to do that, or when there is no prescribed rectification for an infraction. If there is a prescribed rectification you have to follow that and that you are not allowed to adjust the score that follows as a result of that rectification, unless told so by a specific law. Law 64 is a perfect example on this. You give the penalty tricks under 64B, but you would not be allowed to adjust that score if 64C would not exist.

 

So before you apply 12B you have to check 1. Does the law tell me to give an adjusted score? In this case No. Is there a prescribed rectification. Yes. Are there any specific law that allows me to adjust after the rectification? No there is not.

 

Then no you simply are not allowed to adjust.

 

 

 

 

 

[sanst]

I’m wondering what lamford proposes. Something like “If the OS gains because of an infraction, even if the appropriate rectification has been applied, the TD should award an AS to redress the damage to the NOS”? That won’t work and would lead to double shots. An example: there is an OLOOT and the NOS chooses to let the best player of the two become declarer who forbids leading in the suit shown. Afterwards it’s clear that this is the only way that 3NT will go off. So lamford will award the NOS an AS because they made the wrong choice. That’s ridiculous. If you change the Laws in this way, you should have no choices as NOS, but let the TD decide afterwards whether you are damaged by the infraction and it’s compulsory rectification.

[pran]

It's not the infraction that gains, it's subsequent actions. Those actions might be a consequence of the infraction but that is what 10C4 is about.

 

What you are saying is that for instance if my opponents get a MPC, and I choose one of my options and it turns out that another choosing another option might have worked out better I will be able to get an adjustment?

 

We do not need a WBFLC minute for everything. If the members of the WBFLC teach us something at international TD courses then that is how the law is supposed to be applied.

 

And also as other already has pointed out. Law 12B1 does not give you the right to adjust any score. Law 12A gives you the right to adjust the scores when either the law tells you to do that, or when there is no prescribed rectification for an infraction. If there is a prescribed rectification you have to follow that and that you are not allowed to adjust the score that follows as a result of that rectification, unless told so by a specific law. Law 64 is a perfect example on this. You give the penalty tricks under 64B, but you would not be allowed to adjust that score if 64C would not exist.

 

So before you apply 12B you have to check 1. Does the law tell me to give an adjusted score? In this case No. Is there a prescribed rectification. Yes. Are there any specific law that allows me to adjust after the rectification? No there is not.

 

Then no you simply are not allowed to adjust.

In the youth of contract bridge (as the story goes) Ely Culbertson was asked and answered that the following action by declarer was according to the laws and therefore perfectly legal:

 

Declarer was in a 3NT contract which opponents could set directly from the opening lead. However, Declarer revoked (deliberately) and thereby established a stopper. He then made his contract with sufficient tricks to pay the prescribed revoke penalty for a final result of 3NT just made!

 

I believe that was what caused (the equivalent of) Law 64C to be inserted in the laws.

[lamford]

An example: there is an OLOOT and the NOS chooses to let the best player of the two become declarer who forbids leading in the suit shown. Afterwards it’s clear that this is the only way that 3NT will go off. So lamford will award the NOS an AS because they made the wrong choice. That’s ridiculous. If you change the Laws in this way, you should have no choices as NOS, but let the TD decide afterwards whether you are damaged by the infraction and it’s compulsory rectification.

I don't think you can decide who plays the hand AND also forbid the suit shown, but it is indeed quite possible that the lead from the wrong hand would defeat the contract while it could not be beaten by the lead from the right hand. This is ridiculous as well. And, as in "retarded rabbit", none of the five options might be sufficient. If someone commits an infraction they "could be aware" that it "could well" damage the non-offending side; they don't need to know how, nor does the law require it. I am not suggesting changing the law. I am advocating TDs considering that when someone commits an infraction, and the laws do not provide sufficient rectification, they could be aware that it could well damage the non-offending side.

 

There has been a tendency in recent years to decrease the penalties for infractions, particularly BOOTs. This makes it more attractive to do them deliberately, but then nobody would cheat deliberately at bridge would they? After all it is only a game.

[weejonnie]

I might be in favour of changing "could be aware" to "could be reasonably aware". The trouble with 72C is that it is under "General Principles" and so is very wide ranging - as lamford has pointed out.

[lamford]

I might be in favour of changing "could be aware" to "could be reasonably aware". The trouble with 72C is that it is under "General Principles" and so is very wide ranging - as lamford has pointed out.

If you also change 12B to "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe to the offending side or advantageous to the non-offending side." then I would agree. In the meantime, we should interpret "could be aware" literally.

[blackshoe]

If the members of the WBFLC teach us something at international TD courses then that is how the law is supposed to be applied.

Seems to me that unless a member of the WBFLC is acting in an official capacity as a member of the WBFLC, whatever he might say, write, or teach is his opinion only, and not official. Besides, what of those of us who are unable to attend these courses?

[axman]

In the youth of contract bridge (as the story goes) Ely Culbertson was asked and answered that the following action by declarer was according to the laws and therefore perfectly legal:

 

Declarer was in a 3NT contract which opponents could set directly from the opening lead. However, Declarer revoked (deliberately) and thereby established a stopper. He then made his contract with sufficient tricks to pay the prescribed revoke penalty for a final result of 3NT just made!

 

I believe that was what caused (the equivalent of) Law 64C to be inserted in the laws.

Actually, in 1933 this provision was present:

 

LAW No.39

 

Inquiries Regarding Possible Revoke

 

(a) Any player may question any other player as to whether his lead or play constitutes a revoke (except that Dummy may question only De­clarer), but the question or the answer made thereto shall not be deemed to have corrected a revoke otherwise established.

(b) Either adversary or Declarer (as the case may be) may demand that a correct card be substituted for the revoking card, in which case the offender is subject to the penalty for a corrected revoke, but not to the penalty for an established revoke.

 

It thus was possible to require the revoke to be corrected. what might be interesting is the effect of not correcting the revoke as required.... since not doing so would be an additional revoke:

 

LAW No.38

 

Revoke Penalties

 

(a) Corrected revoke by an adversary.

Penalty: Declarer may elect (1) to treat the card played in error as exposed, or (2) to require the offender to play his highest or lowest card of the suit led.

(b) Corrected revoke by Declarer.

Penalty: If the left-hand adversary has played after the revoke, he may require Declarer to play his highest or lowest card of the suit led; no penalty if the left-hand adversary has not played.

© Revoke by Dummy, whether corrected or established. No penalty.

(d) Established revoke by Declarer or an adversary.

Penalty: For the first revoke, two tricks won by the revoking side are surrendered to the other side; ‘for each subsequent revoke by the same side, one trick is so surrendered, except that no transfer of tricks shall include any trick won before the first revoke occurred, nor any trick transferred from the other side in payment of a previous revoke. Penalty tricks are scored exactly as though won in play.

[sanst]

I don't think you can decide who plays the hand AND also forbid the suit shown as well

That’s exactly what SB did in Retarded Rabbit. Don’t tell me that he doesn’t think that he is the superior player. His ego seems to surpass that of a certain president on the other side of the pond, if that’s possible.

[pran]

Actually, in 1933 this provision was present:

 

LAW No.39

 

Inquiries Regarding Possible Revoke

 

(a) Any player may question any other player as to whether his lead or play constitutes a revoke (except that Dummy may question only De­clarer), but the question or the answer made thereto shall not be deemed to have corrected a revoke otherwise established.

(b) Either adversary or Declarer (as the case may be) may demand that a correct card be substituted for the revoking card, in which case the offender is subject to the penalty for a corrected revoke, but not to the penalty for an established revoke.

 

It thus was possible to require the revoke to be corrected. what might be interesting is the effect of not correcting the revoke as required.... since not doing so would be an additional revoke:

 

LAW No.38

 

Revoke Penalties

 

(a) Corrected revoke by an adversary.

Penalty: Declarer may elect (1) to treat the card played in error as exposed, or (2) to require the offender to play his highest or lowest card of the suit led.

(b) Corrected revoke by Declarer.

Penalty: If the left-hand adversary has played after the revoke, he may require Declarer to play his highest or lowest card of the suit led; no penalty if the left-hand adversary has not played.

© Revoke by Dummy, whether corrected or established. No penalty.

(d) Established revoke by Declarer or an adversary.

Penalty: For the first revoke, two tricks won by the revoking side are surrendered to the other side; ‘for each subsequent revoke by the same side, one trick is so surrendered, except that no transfer of tricks shall include any trick won before the first revoke occurred, nor any trick transferred from the other side in payment of a previous revoke. Penalty tricks are scored exactly as though won in play.

I see nothing in law 38 (or any other of the 1933 laws of duplicate contract bridge) that provided for extra compensation in case the rectification provided for an established revoke turned out insufficient to fully compensate for the damage caused to a non-offending side.

 

The laws of 1933 were strictly speaking applicable only within USA. The first international laws on contract bridge (rubber as well as duplicate) were agreed upon and made applicable world-wide in 1936. It appears to me that the same deficiency in revoke penalties was still present after 1936.

[axman]

I see nothing in law 38 (or any other of the 1933 laws of duplicate contract bridge) that provided for extra compensation in case the rectification provided for an established revoke turned out insufficient to fully compensate for the damage caused to a non-offending side.

 

The laws of 1933 were strictly speaking applicable only within USA. The first international laws on contract bridge (rubber as well as duplicate) were agreed upon and made applicable world-wide in 1936. It appears to me that the same deficiency in revoke penalties was still present after 1936.

 

L48

(6) A player should not purposely incur a penalty, even though willing to pay it. If a player commits an offense against the ethics or proprieties of the game, and either opponent feels that the interests of his side are prejudiced thereby, he may request a Neutral Score under the provisions of Law No. 22.

For intentional or repeated violation, the committee may disqualify or bar offenders from further play, and adjust the score in whatever way it considers equitable.

[pran]

L48

(6) A player should not purposely incur a penalty, even though willing to pay it. If a player commits an offense against the ethics or proprieties of the game, and either opponent feels that the interests of his side are prejudiced thereby, he may request a Neutral Score under the provisions of Law No. 22.

For intentional or repeated violation, the committee may disqualify or bar offenders from further play, and adjust the score in whatever way it considers equitable.

Neutral score was what we know as artificial adjusted score and could be granted by the Director when he considered a board unplayable for whatever reason.

A damaged side could then (usually) choose between the provided penalty (if any) for an irregularity and have the board void with a neutral score (when granted).

 

There was no provision in Law 22 for using neutral score to compensate for instance insufficient revoke compensation similar to what we have in Law 64C.

[axman]

Neutral score was what we know as artificial adjusted score and could be granted by the Director when he considered a board unplayable for whatever reason.

A damaged side could then (usually) choose between the provided penalty (if any) for an irregularity and have the board void with a neutral score (when granted).

 

There was no provision in Law 22 for using neutral score to compensate for instance insufficient revoke compensation similar to what we have in Law 64C.

neutral score was 70%-30%

[pran]

neutral score was 70%-30%

"Neutral score" was always 50%-50%, but there was also "Neutral score with penalty" where the penalty was 10%, 20% or 25% depending on the nature of the irregularity. (Individual play and team play had slightly different rates)

 

For a deliberate violation of law the penalty was actually 25% (resulting in a "neutral score with penalty" of 75% - 25%.

 

However, for an accidental/unintended revoke the laws included no provision of Neutral score at all.

 

(For the record: My reference is Alfred M Gruenther "Duplicate Contract Complete" New York March 1933)