[blml] Does L12B1 void some rub-of-the-green outcomes?

[Jerry Fusselman]

L12B1:

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending
side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending
side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an
infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than
would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but
see C1(b).

---------------

Had I written this, I would have inserted "expected" before "table
result."  Suppose my side commits an infraction and we end up in 3NT.
It is expected to be really bad given that we have a nine-card spade
fit, but it turns out that everyone will make nine tricks in either
contract.  3NT is expected to be bad, but somehow, given some rare,
weird quirks of how the cards lie, 3NT is a top.  Is the director
called upon to take away my rub-of-the-green top because of L12B1 due
its focus on table result instead of expected table result?

I am saying that, in this law, "Damage exists" is defined poorly.  It
should be in terms of expected results and not actual table results.
My reading of this law, if correct, means that a NOS should never end
up with a score below 50% as long as it plays bridge throughout.  And,
if I am reading it right, the OS should never get above 50% unless
perhaps the NOS started the auction (or play) poorly before the
irregularity.  Why 50%?---it is the expectation.

Jerry Fusselman