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

[Stefanie Rohan]

JF

> 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?

This rub-of-the-green thing was a hobbyhorse of Bobby
Wolff's. The idea was that the NOS already got their
benefit by way of the equity at the beginning of the
hand.

However, the idea was entirely discredited quite a few
years ago. Damage to the opponents is calculated AFTER
the hand is played.
> 
> 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.

See above.

> 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.

No, you do not get the expectation from the moment the
hand is taken out of the board! The OS might have had
a successful auction until the infraction -- they may
have bid a disallowed slam which is ruled back to
game, but still get a top if the rest of the field is
languishing in a partscore.


Stefanie Rohan
London, England