[blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Robert Geller]

No problem.  L72B1 says
************************************************* 
Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his 
irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, 
he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted 
score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the 
irregularity. 
***********************************************
and that obviously applies here.

-Bob






richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes::
>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.
>
>Law 12B:
>
>The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that
>the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or
>advantageous to either side.
>
>Richard Hills:
>
>These two Laws have remained unchanged(1) since the 1975 edition
>of the Lawbook.  To the average club director, these two laws
>seem somewhat contradictory.  Edgar Kaplan (at least) twice gave
>his interpretation of these two laws in Bridge World articles.
>
>However, those two Kaplanic interpretations were contradictory.
>
>The Bridge World, July 1975, pages 3-4:
>
>(4) Under the old [1963 - RJH] Laws, the director had a vaguely
>defined discretionary power to adjust a score after an
>irregularity, "when, in the Director's opinion, these Laws
>provide no penalty which will fully indemnify a non-offending
>contestant."  The trouble was that this quotation was given, by
>different directors, a vast range of interpretations going all
>the way from, (a) "never adjust a score if the law does provide
>a penalty for the type of infraction committed," to (z) "always
>adjust the score if the penalty, in a particular instance,
>happens to work to the disadvantage of the innocent side".
>
>Almost all directors would adjust the score when a revoke showed
>a profit; still, an occasional director would not.  Most
>directors would refuse an adjustment when a player who had
>barred partner by opening out of turn then stabbed at a
>contract, and got a lucky top; a scattered few would adjust the
>score.  If a player, not hearing partner's bid, opened one club
>after partner had also opened the bidding, he could correct to
>two clubs without penalty - when he thereby reached a delicate
>slam, directors would split 50-50 over whether to admit the
>score.  The consequence was that rulings would differ widely in
>virtually identical cases.  And a player, told by the floor
>director that he could correct to two clubs without penalty,
>might later find himself penalized should he get a good result
>- the Chief Director might be a "z" man.  No one could know what
>the law really was, for it was in each director's head not in
>the book.
>
>The new [1975 - RJH] Code firmly establishes interpretation "a"
>- the director's discretionary power is to be used in unusual
>cases not covered by law, or in applying those sections that
>make no mention of penalty (e.g. the Proprieties).  When a law
>says what the penalty is to be (or says "no penalty"), that's
>that.
>
>Richard Hills:
>
>Therefore, Kaplan was saying that Law 12B was a primary Law
>which could not be over-ridden by what he interpreted as a
>residual secondary Law, Law 12A1.  But nine years later Edgar
>stated the opposite, in effect saying "that's not that".
>
>The Bridge World, January 1984, pages 14-16:
>
>Suppose this is the trump suit around the table:
>
>                          DUMMY
>                          H J84
>WEST                                            EAST
>H A72                                           H K3
>                          DECLARER
>                          H QT965
>
>Declarer leads dummy's heart four to East's three and his own
>queen; West thinks it over for quite a while, then ducks with
>the two.  He is not trying to fool anybody (everyone now knows
>he has the ace); he is merely putting himself in position to
>win the second round of trumps and lead a third round.
>Obviously, that will be a disaster here.  However, before
>declarer can lead a second round of trumps towards the jack,
>East cleverly drops his heart king on the table.  This becomes
>a penalty card.  It must be played at the first opportunity, and
>declarer has several other options - but none of his options
>will force West to play his ace on partner's king.  The great
>crash has been averted!
>
>[snip]
>
>The route to score adjustment seems blocked, since the
>appropriate laws do specify the indemnities for exposed cards
>and redundant doubles, indemnities that were assessed and paid.
>Remember, "The Director may not assign an adjusted score on the
>grounds that the penalty provided in these Laws is unduly severe
>or advantageous to either side".  So, neither may a Committee.
>
>Must the injustice stand, then?  No, an adjusted score may be
>assigned, since, "These Laws provide no indemnity to a non-
>offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law
>or propriety committed by an opponent."
>
>Richard Hills:
>
>Therefore, Kaplan was now saying that Law 12A1 was a primary Law
>which could over-ride what he now interpreted as a residual
>secondary Law, Law 12B.
>
>The problem with this 1984 interpretation of Law 12A1 is that it
>opened the floodgates for again no one to know what the law
>really was, and again for the law to be in each director's head
>not in the book.
>
>And after the 1987 and 1997 editions of the Lawbook, with the
>inclusion of "could have known" Laws such as Law 72B1, this 1984
>interpretation of Law 12A1 as a primary Law seems to me to be no
>longer necessary.
>
>Whichever one of Kaplan's two contradictory interpretations of
>the interaction between Law 12A1 and Law 12B is correct, it seems
>to me that it would be useful if next year's Lawbook _explicitly_
>clarifies which one should be used by bewildered local club TDs.
>
>
>Best wishes
>
>Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
>National Training Branch
>02 6225 6285
>
>(1) Pedant's footnote: The 1975 Law 12A1 did refer to "violation
>of law or propriety", but that was insurance against 1975 sea-
>lawyers who might otherwise have wriggled through a loophole of
>the Proprieties in the 1975 Lawbook lacking Law numbers.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml