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

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills:

[snip]

>>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.

Herman De Wael:

>I think the correct handling of this case depends
>on what Richard means with the word "careful" in
>his first sentence above.
>
>If the eleventh trick is made on a finesse, then
>surely everyone will agree that the AS should be
>+620.
>
>If OTOH the eleventh trick has disappeared because
>of a revoke, the AS (for NS) should remain at
>-100. I'm not sure about EW.
>
>In all cases in between, the AC will have a
>difficult decision to make.

[snip]

Richard Hills:

I disagree.

My point of view is that without the infraction of
Law 16 by East-West, the contract would have been
4S.

Careless play by North-South in 4S, resulting in
ten tricks rather than the normal eleven, costs
North-South one imp.

However, careless play by North-South in the
higher contract of 5S costs thirteen imps.  The
potential damage to North-South if they play
carelessly has therefore been increased by twelve
imps due to the East-West infraction of illegally
bidding 5D after use of UI, thus pushing the
North-South contract to a level where a mistake is
more costly.

Therefore, from my point of view it is irrelevant
whether the North-South carelessness is due to a
failure to finesse or due to a revoke.  In either
case the cost to North-South and the benefit to
East-West has been increased by a net of twelve
imps due to the East-West infraction, so it is
that net of twelve imps which should be restored
by a fair and equitable non-split adjusted score.


Best wishes

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