[blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Adam Wildavsky:

>Todd Zimnoch, in addition to pointing out that in Case N-13 I meant
>to refer to Case N-09, not Case N-08, also asked me to clarify my
>reasoning on Case N-09. This in turn forced me to clarify my own
>thinking. Here are my revised comments on N-09. Please let me know
>if you find them unclear, if you can find the topic of adjustments
>for multiple infractions addressed in the '97 Laws,

Richard Hills:

The only 1997 Law that I have discovered which deals with multiple
infractions is Law 64B2:

"The penalty for an established revoke does not apply:
to a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player."

Adam Wildavsky:

>or if you have a suggestion as to how the topic ought to be
>addressed in the new Laws.

Richard Hills:

My preference is that multiple infractions should be rectified in
chronological order, from first to last.

This is particularly important when one player's infraction
_partially causes_ an opponent's subsequent infraction.

The paradigm case, previously discussed on blml, is when declarer's
RHO leads a plain suit, declarer revokes by trumping, partially
causing declarer's LHO to also revoke by over-trumping.  Before
either revoke is established, both declarer and LHO correct their
revokes.

Law 62B1 says that LHO's withdrawn card is a penalty card, but Law
62C1 says that LHO's withdrawn card is not a penalty card.

If the chronological order rule was inserted into the new Laws,
then it would be clear that Law 62C1 was the relevant Law, and
justice would be served with LHO's withdrawn card _not_ being a
penalty card.

Adam Wildavsky:

>======
>
>9. Both East and West had UI at their disposal, so there were two
>possible infractions. The TD decided that West had no LA to the
>action he took and seems to have ignored the UI available to East.
>The AC decided that West did indeed have a LA, but to ignore that
>aspect of the case and instead adjust on the basis that East had a
>less successful LA to the action he took.
>
>The laws are unfortunately not specific as to how to adjust the
>score when the same side commits two separate infractions. It
>seems to me we ought to choose the adjustment that produces the
>least favorable score for the offenders. Why? Many infractions, as
>in this case, are matters for the TD's and AC's judgment. They may
>well decide that one of several potential infractions on a deal
>was in fact not an infraction.
>
>The NOS should never end up with a worse adjustment if their
>opponents' action is judged an infraction than if it is not.
>Otherwise we could be treated to the spectacle of a player
>pleading, say, that he had in fact provided misinformation, and
>his opponents arguing the contrary.
>
>The AC improved the TD's ruling. I'd have preferred an adjustment
>to 5C, perhaps doubled, but it would not likely have resulted in a
>different matchpoint score. I cannot fathom why the AC removed the
>PP. It was particularly appropriate -- East violated procedure by
>addressing her partner during the bidding.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm