[blml] 40B3, etc.

[Eric Landau]

On Mar 26, 2008, at 8:09 PM, Steve Willner wrote:

>>> For example, if you make an insufficient bid which cannot be
>>> untangled, so
>>> partner must call an enforced pass, and you choose a rational  
>>> guess of
>>> punting 3NT, you keep your top if the field has had a scientific
>>> auction to
>>> 6NT failing by one trick due to a 5-0 break.
>
> I've lost who posted this, but the conclusion was correct under the  
> old
> Laws.  As will appear below, I believe the new Laws change it.
>
>>> "...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..."
>
>> From: Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net>
>>  Ruth is in the
>> expectation, where 6NT is superior to 3NT; Mabel is in the actuality,
>> where 3NT is superior to 6NT.
>
> Eric here seems to be basing "expectation" only on the  
> partnership's 26
> cards.  If, however, you look at all 52, presumably the expectation
> absent the IB will be 6NT-1.

I was indeed.  The context of that remark, however, was a discussion  
of the language of L12.  The "rub of the green" (RooG) doctrine is  
well precedented and established in practice.  Although L12 has been  
significantly rewritten from 1997, and is sufficiently ambiguous to  
be interpreted so as to eliminate RooG, it doesn't read, IMO, as  
though that was the authors' intention.

> I don't see how L27D combined with L12B allows the table score to  
> stand.
>   Even if the NOS commit a "serious error," the OS score will still be
> the "expectation."  I can't read anything else into L27D, where "could
> have known" does not appear.  This represents a major change from past
> practice.  Perhaps it was considered a tradeoff for the much more
> greater ability to correct IBs without barring partner.  The OS is  
> more
> likely to get its "proper" score but is barred from a windfall, no
> matter how unpredictable.
>
> If this is not what the new Laws are supposed to mean, we need an
> interpretation.  (Personally I don't much like the change, but my
> opinion doesn't count.)

L27D is a brand new kettle of fish, and one for which we do not have  
precedent.  It appears to offer a different kind of redress, designed  
to protect the NOS not from the consequences of an infraction per se,  
but from the consequences of legal actions taken to redress a prior  
infraction (it is triggered by L27B, not L18).  Although it cross- 
references L12B1, it goes on to direct us to recover "the probable  
outcome of the board had the IB not occurred", rather than "the  
expectation had the infraction not occurred" (there is no mention of  
"expectation" in L27D).  I agree with Steve that the words of L27D do  
not leave room for RooG, although I seriously doubt that that was the  
authors' intention.  The larger question is whether L27D merely  
serves as a "bridge" to L12, or requires a different procedure which  
may lead to a different adjustment.  I would argue the latter, as  
otherwise there would be no need to have L27D at all, and L27B could  
reference L12C1 directly.


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