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

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard.hills at immi.gov.au>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Cc: <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 3:07 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> 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



To be equitable it seems to me that the whole pie should be divided between 
the players that are contesting it.  There seems something inequitable about 
ruling you [NOS] get 33% of the pie and you [OS] get 0% of the pie and the 
Governor of Iksbadstaad gets 67% to make illegal campaign contributions to 
Congress [you know which one].



The problem being what recipe to use that finds equity.



There is a way to divide the pie equitably.  Estimate [a 'weighted'] score 
that the NOS  would likely feel they earned given their agreements, the 
cards, and what the four players have done.  Then, estimate [a 'weighted'] 
score that the OS  would likely feel they earned given their agreements, the 
cards, and what the four players have done.  Then pick a spot between the 
two where you estimate that neither side would feel inclined to appeal.  And 
tell both sides if one or both disagree either can appeal** with the 
following ground rules.  The appealing side[s] pick one result [or one set 
of weighted results] that reflects what each side has earned and justify it 
to an AC.  If convincing then both sides get that score. If not convincing 
then the ruling stands for the other side and your side gets the least 
favorable result that was at all probable.



**An appeal can made to increase- or decrease their score [as when a side 
feels that the ruling was too generous and they want to avoid an even larger 
reduction should the other side appeal].



regards

roger pewick