[blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI

[Marvin French]

> 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 would prefer "in any event" to "with or without," which is doubtful
syntax.

This is a very difficult subject, and I don't claim my opinions are the
best, only the best I can come up with for ACBL-land. Divining the
intent of poor writing is very hard.

Now, the first clause says that the non-offenders get the most favorable
result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.

Stop there. If you assign +110 to the non-offenders when an irregularity
has deprived them of that score,  then ACBLscore gives the
offenders -110. . It is automatic that the offenders get the negative of
the non-offenders' score. That is your "without," David, and it comes
after the irregularity

But the lawmakers considered that this sometimes be too lenient, e.g.,
there is a significant chance ("at all probable") for a 140 score,
giving the offenders -140. Had this been the only consideration, then
the first clause could read:

"...for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely,
and for the offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all
probable, had the irregularity not occurred." In fact, this is how Adam
and others interpret L12C2.

But they didn't do that. Instead they added an "or" clause for the
offenders. It is very significant that this was not an "and," but
instead an exclusive "or," i.e., if the first clause is deemed
insufficient then invoke the second clause.  That is your "without,"
David, and it also comes after 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.

A reasonable position, but then the "or" clause would be unnecessary. I
cannot think of an unfavorable "with" result other than one coming from
a position taken by the offending side. If the "or" clause has any
relevance, then it must apply to contracts bid but not played by the
offending side.
>
> 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?

> 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.

I vote for the -200 if that result was at all probable. The score
adjustment for offenders should not depend on a coin toss by the
non-offenders if the irregularity has led to an advantage in the
former's score.

.What about if 2H was going  down?
>
> 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.

"Damage" for the offending side is defined (by the WBFLC) as an
advantage in the score as a result of an irregularity. Since there was
no damage  L12C2 does not apply and the result stands.

Marv
Marvin L. French
San Diego, California
www.marvinfrench.com