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

[Eric Landau]

On Feb 4, 2008, at 2:54 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote:

> 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.

For this to matter requires a rather peculiar situation to have  
arisen.  You are talking about a case where unauthorized -- but  
presumably accurate -- information demonstrably suggests a call that  
ultimately leads to a odd and inferior contract over a call that  
would have led to the normal, superior one.  Only then can the  
question of what to do when the inferior contract produces a better  
score than the normal one arise.  Has anyone in this forum ever  
actually encountered such a case?  I am at a loss to construct a non- 
silly example.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net