[blml] 40B3, etc.

[David Burn]

[EL]

I rule [in a scenario where North has barred South by correcting an IB to
3NT, which makes five for a top because the field goes down in 6NT due to a
very unlucky lie] that the NOS was not damaged by the OS's infraction, since
the infraction reduced the OS's expectation below that "had the infraction
not occurred".  They were admittedly unlucky to be damaged by a 5-0 break in
the key suit, but that was not due to anything the OS did.

[DALB]

Indeed, but that is no longer the question. The Director is supposed to use
the (stupid) meta-Laws such as L27D to "rectify" the position to what it
would in his best judgement have been "had the infraction not occurred". At
least, that is what he is supposed to do in the case of insufficient bids,
if I understand Kojak aright.

Well, if this infraction had not occurred, North-South would have played 6NT
down one. They played 3NT making five because North committed an infraction.
He could not have known that it would benefit his side, so no application of
some other (stupid) meta-Law such as L23 will avail. Why let the table
result stand? I know that the NOS was "damaged by" the 5-0 break, but it was
"damaged because of" the infraction in a manner so direct that Kaplan's
arguments about the Battle of Waterloo are irrelevant.

But even that is no longer the question. The new L12B1 says this:

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.

The term "expectation" is not defined within the Laws. It has, of course, a
particular and precise significance in game theory; it has also a general
connotation that has little or nothing to do with the mathematical one. Eric
uses the mathematical definition of "expectation" in his arguments, but it
is very far from clear to me that this is what was intended. I wonder how it
has been translated into Japanese, and how the Japanese would be translated
back into English by someone other than Robert Geller.

David Burn
London, England