[blml] My Dallas comments posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Guthrie]

[Richard Hills]
> First issue ->
>
> In the NABC appeal number five under discussion, it
> seems that the Appeals Committee erred in stating
> that "N/S's result was due to South's excessive
> caution in neither doubling 2C nor bidding 3C".
>
> A number of blmlers, whom considered a pass to be
> a logical alternative on the MI that South received
> at the table, did *not* consider a pass to be a
> logical alternative on the correct information.
>
> And even if one assumes, for the sake of argument,
> that the AC was right in determining South's pass
> as irrationally excessively cautious (thus denying
> North-South an adjusted score), the AC should
> still have split the score (adjusting for East-West
> at least), since the East-West MI infraction
> greatly increased the likelihood of South choosing
> an excessively cautious pass.
>
> Second issue ->
>
> "The director, after a discussion with N/S and
> E/W at the table, had assumed that N/S was
> comfortable with the table result. Because this
> hand was from the fourth quarter and neither pair
> had requested a ruling let alone an appeal, the
> table director left after all the results had
> been submitted."
>
> It seems to me that the director has somewhat
> misinterpreted two clauses of Law 81C:
>
> "The Director's duties and powers normally
> include the following:
> .....
> 6. Errors
> to rectify an error or irregularity of which he
> becomes aware in any manner, within the
> correction period established in accordance with
> Law 79C.
> .....
> 8. Waiver of Penalties
> to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion,
> upon the request of the non-offending side."
>
> That is, it seems to me that if the Director is
> summoned to the table because of an irregularity,
> then the Director is required to rectify that
> irregularity, regardless of whether or not a pair
> requests a ruling.
>
> And it seem to me that the Director should not
> automatically waive a penalty merely because the
> non-offending side is "comfortable" with the
> table result.  Rather, it seems to me that such
> a waiver not only requires a specific request
> from the non-offending side, but also requires a
> "cause".  (Edgar Kaplan's example of such a
> "cause" was declarer spilling coffee into a
> defender's lap, causing the defender to expose a
> card.)
>
> Third issue ->
>
> 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 this case it seems to me that there were two
> infractions causing damage.
>
> In the instant before the first MI infraction,
> North-South could expect +130 declaring 3C.
>
> But in the instant before the consequent second
> UI infraction - East's illegal 2S signoff, when
> a legal logical alternative would be to raise
> partner's apparent 2D try to 3D - then North-
> South could expect +150 or +300 (depending on
> whether or not East-West were vulnerable) by
> defending a 3D contract failing by three tricks.
>
> If one assumes that an intelligent Appeals
> Committee had ruled that East-West did indeed
> commit those two infractions, are North-South
> entitled to +130 or +150/+300?  Or should the
> score be split, so North-South get +130 and
> East-West get -150/-300?
>
> It seems to me that the correct North-South
> adjusted score is debatable, but it is certain
> that a score of -150/-300 for East-West is the
> correct ACBL ruling (given that Law 12C3 does
> not apply there).
>
> Law 12C2 states:
>
> ".....the score is, for a non-offending side,
> the most favourable result that was likely had
> the irregularity not occurred or, for an
> offending side, the most unfavourable result
> that was at all probable....."
>
> That is, given that the phrase "had the
> irregularity not occurred" is only relevant to
> the non-offending side, it seems to me that
> East-West can be given the most unfavourable
> result at all probable after a mere partial
> correction of their two irregularities.
>
> Of course, then the AC would have to more
> intensively investigate the facts to determine
> whether or not East-West were vulnerable.  (It
> seems to me that perhaps the ACBL could
> possibly improve its record-keeping in one of
> its most prestigious events by using computer-
> dealt boards throughout.)
>   
[Nige1]
IMO many players would endorse Richard's assessment: especially of 
logical alternatives to East's 2S.

This is a typical equity ruling by the director and committee. It could 
be published as a paradigm in the new edition of the Laws. :(

A mugger beats up an old lady and robs her of her purse. A policeman 
catches the escaping mugger and examines the purse. He finds it empty. 
He feels that no punishment or redress is appropriate because there was 
no obvious loss. She brings a private prosecution but the courts find 
her guilty of wasting police time. The court kindly let  her off so that 
she can attend her appointments at the hospital casualty department :(