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

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 12:06 2/06/2006 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote:

>Let's consider the case of a finesse, or maybe better of a complicated 
>play requiring a choice of which suit to attack first, with a failure rate 
>of 30%.
>
>I would like to compare the AS for a pair going down in 5S with the one 
>for a pair who do not bid the 5S to begin with.

If the line of play expected from the NOS is "complicated", I would decide 
that missing it is definitely not "failing to play bridge", and award them 
the score they would have got if there had been no infraction, i.e. +620. 
This is equity. And in any case of doubt (ie, Was missing this line an 
egregious error or not ? Perhaps), I would restore +620.

If we act otherwise, we would sooner or later encounter a case where 
declarer played in a strange way to cater for the case where the opponents' 
action *was* ethical (freak hand), and you'll tell him his line was 
inferior because it didn't cater for "ordinary" cases, so you don't adjust. 
This looks pretty wrong.

If we have to look harsh to one side or the other (and in the case 
described by Richard, we have), I'd rather be harsh to the OS. BTA I've 
always been known to out-herod Herod in L16A and L23 cases.

Regards, Alain