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

[Tim West-Meads]

Richard wrote:

> 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.

I think you are misinterpreting both.  Whatever score is assigned must 
be based on a contract of 4S so awarding NS -100/+300 assumes only 9 
tricks in that contract.

> 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.

Whereas I would assign a L12c3 score of:
20% of 650, 80% of 620 to both sides on the grounds that there is some 
chance that in the less pressured contract of 4S the lead may have been 
more helpful and/or the misplay not occurred.

Of course this might annoy Nigel because the L12c3 ruling is more 
beneficial to NOS than the L12c2 ruling would have been and he might 
have to stop making assertions about L12c3 requiring TDs to be overly 
generous to OS.

Tim