[blml] 40B3, etc.

[Eric Landau]

On Mar 25, 2008, at 11:53 PM, David Burn wrote:

> [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.

The thing about using actual results rather than some probabalistic  
expected value -- I doubt that David would call it a "problem" -- is  
that it means that a player who has committed an infraction is doomed  
perforce to getting a bad score, since any good score whatsoever, no  
matter how lucky, will be adjusted away.  The sentimental softies who  
wrote TFLB apparently believed that a player who committed an  
infraction should be allowed an opportunity to recover from it,  
provided he is able to do so without any possibility of his having  
gained any advantage by virtue of his infraction.  The result is the  
well-precedented doctrine we refer to as "rub of the green", which  
says that a lucky result in an inferior contract is not considered  
"consequent" damage.  "The objective of score adjustment is to  
redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage  
gained by an offending side through its infraction" [L12B1].   
"Consequent damage" is gain resulting from an "advantage" conferred  
by the infraction, not any gain whatsoever.


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