[blml] Belgian TD exam question

[Peter Eidt]

sorry Richard,
but this sounds as we can abolish Law 53 A as
well as some other laws.

Of course every LOOT is an infraction.
Your suggestion below means that you let play
them out (with the application of Law 53 A) and,
if the score is worse than the expectation prior
to the infraction, then you adjust via Law 72 B1,
or 12 A1, and 12 Cx. (??)

This can't be right - and this is not what the laws
say. LHO of offender has in many cases the
right to waive penalties and has very often the
choise to accept the infringing call (Laws 25 B1, 
27 A, 29 A, 53 A, 55 A). 
And you won't in any cases, where you give him 
the option to accept or decline the infringing call 
and his choice doesn't work well for his side, 
give him an adjustment afterwards, will you ?

astonished
Peter


> Richard Hills:
> 
> >>Therefore North-South get the score they would
> >>have gained if East's "could have known"
> >>infraction had not occurred, unless North's
> >>action in automatically following suit to the
> >>lead from dummy is deemed to be irrational, wild
> >>or gambling.
> 
> Peter Eidt:
> 
> >I disagree with this sentence.
> >
> >North is bound to Law 53 A:
> >
> >"Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a
> >correct lead. It becomes a correct lead [...] if
> >the player next in rotation [...] plays to the
> >irregular lead [...]"
> >
> >In this law there's nothing about "irrationally
> >plays to the irregular play" or the like.
> >
> >So, NS get the table score while for the
> >declarer we apply Law 72 B1 as he did gain
> >through the irregularity.
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> I disagree with this application of Law.  In my
> opinion, this is the sequence of application of
> Law:
> 
> Law 44G:
> 
> "The player who has won the trick leads to the
> next trick."
> 
> Declarer infracted Law 44G by leading from the
> entryless dummy when the closed hand had won
> the previous trick.
> 
> WBF Code of Practice, page 5:
> 
> "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."
> 
> In the instant prior to the Law 44G infraction,
> Law 53A was neither applicable nor relevant.
> 
> Law 12A1:
> 
> "The Director may award an assigned adjusted
> score when he judges that these Laws do not
> provide indemnity to the non-offending
> contestant for the particular type of violation
> of law committed by an opponent."
> 
> Since Law 44G does not provide an indemnity to
> the non-offending side for its infraction, the
> Director can use Law 12A1 to adjust the score
> for the non-offending side (while using the
> "could have known" Law 72B1 to adjust the score
> of, and award a procedural penalty to, the
> offending side).