[blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI

[David Grabiner]

Thanks to Marvin French for providing a good and useful document.  However, 
I have two questions about the interpretation of L12C2.

"The non-offending side's adjustment assumes the irregularity had not 
occurred, while the offending side's adjustment is the most unfavorable 
result at all probable after the irregularity."  This should be, "while the 
offending side's adjustment is the most unfavorable result at all probable 
with or without the irregularity."  In most L12C2 cases, the offenders would 
earn a better score as a result of the irregularity, and their adjusted 
score is based on a result without the irregularity.

I also believe the adjustment for the offenders in the example is too harsh; 
the offenders may not benefit from their irregularity, but they are still 
entitled to benefit from the non-offenders' inferior play subsequent to the 
irregularity.  Here is the example

W dealer, both vulnerable
W   N   E   S
2H  ..P P   3D
P   P   3H  AP

3D is ruled to be an infraction.  3H goes down one, and 3D would probably 
have gone down two.  Assuming that 3H was not irrational, wild, or gambling, 
we all agree that the non-offenders are entitled to +110; if it was 
irrational, the non-offenders keep their -100.

But what about the offenders?  I would rule -110; it is not at all probable 
that they would have earned -200, since the non-offenders decided on this 
deal that South would not be allowed to play there.

Here is a variant which gives a clearer example of the problem.

W   N   E   S
2H  ..P  P   3D
AP

3D is ruled to be an infraction.  West leads a spade and 3D goes down one; 
on a club lead, also normal from the West hand, 3D would have gone down two. 
What score should N-S get if 2H could make?  What about if 2H was going 
down?

If 2H was making, E-W get +110, and again I would say that N-S should 
get -110; they shouldn't get an adjustment to the -200 that E-W failed to 
obtain at the table.

If 2H was going down, there was no damage; N-S were -100 and would have been 
+100 without the infraction.  But the same interpretation of L12C2 still 
says that the N-S score should be adjusted to -200.