[blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Grattan Endicott:

>+=+ For comparison I wonder if Richard considers the
>change to the application of the law adopted in 1998
>made the game "fairer and more equitable" ? -
>Viz:
>
>"There was a discussion of the procedure in awarding
>assigned adjusted scores following an irregularity.
>A change was made by the Committee in the
>interpretation of the law. Henceforward the law is
>to be applied so that advantage gained by an
>offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is related to
>the infraction and not obtained solely by the good
>play of the offenders, shall be construed as an
>advantage in the table score whether consequent or
>subsequent to the infraction. Damage to a non-
>offending side shall be a consequence of the
>infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted
>score."
>                     ~ Grattan (wimp, 1987) ~  +=+

WBF Code of Practice, pages 5 and 6:

>>The award of an assigned adjusted score (see Law
>>12C2) is appropriate when a violation of law
>>causes damage to an innocent side (although the
>>extent of redress to this side may be affected,
>>see below, if it has contributed to its own damage
>>by irrational, wild or gambling, action
>>subsequent to the infraction). Damage exists when,
>>in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side
>>obtains a table result less favourable than would
>>have been the expectation in the instant prior to
>>the infraction.
>>
>>If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused
>>its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling
>>action, it does not receive relief in the
>>adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-
>>inflicted. The offending side, however, should be
>>awarded the score that it would have been allotted
>>as the normal consequence of its infraction. A
>>revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the
>>infraction will affect its own score but again the
>>infractor's score is to be adjusted as before
>>without regard to the revoke.

Richard Hills:

The 1998 minute seems to distinguish the concept of
"advantage" to the offending side from the concept
of "damage" to the non-offending side.  It seems to
say that an offending side may have gained illegal
"advantage" when a non-offending side has not
suffered any corresponding "damage", if there is
some relevance connecting the "advantage" to the
earlier irregularity by the offending side.

The Code of Practice, on the other hand, seems to
argue that any portion of "damage" self-inflicted
by a non-offending side accrues to them, but should
not accrue to the benefit of an offending side.

Let us look a particular case to clarify the
difference in rulings between the 1998 minute and
the CoP.

Imped teams.

At Table 1, the Team A North-South reach 4S, which
makes eleven tricks on careful play for +650.

At Table 2, the Team B North-South also reach 4S,
but the Team A East-West infract Law 16 to reach a
cheap 5D save, would give North-South only +300 if
they double.  North-South correctly bid on to the
cold 5S, but then incorrectly misplay to make only
ten tricks.

As I interpret the 1998 minute, the adjusted score
required at Table 2 is a split score of NS -100
and EW -650.

As I interpret the CoP, the adjusted score
required at Table 2 is a split score of NS +300
and EW -650.

My preference would be for neither of the above
interpretations, as I consider neither of them
"fair and equitable".  Rather, I would prefer
the Laws to mandate a fair and equitable non-split
adjusted score at Table 2 of NS +620 and EW -620.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285