[blackshoe]

I simply asked a question. I did not say I want to punish south.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2015-September-14, 07:52, said:

Where the other laws fail to provide rectification for an infraction, I think Law 12A1 should apply. I know that gordontd feels that if the other laws have failed to provide redress for one or more infractions, that is just bad luck, and the TD cannot adjust the score because the remedy provided by those laws was insufficient.

It's not just my feeling, it's the law:

Quote

L12B2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the
rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side

lamford, on 2015-September-14, 07:52, said:

Brian Senior, representing the players, thinks that equity should always be restored and you should NEVER be able to gain from an infraction. Gordontd can speak for himself and correct me if he is being misquoted, but he did offer the opinion (on another case) that there are examples in the Laws of somebody losing out as a result of an infraction, and if the offender could not reasonably have known that is just bad luck. I think this is the wrong interpretation of Law 12A1.

Maybe you would tell us precisely what Brian said, and in what context, rather than than just asserting that he's on the other side, "representing the players".

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2015-September-17, 01:38, said:

Maybe you would tell us precisely what Brian said, and in what context, rather than than just asserting that he's on the other side, "representing the players".

Brian's view, discussing a hand where the king of clubs was dropped during the auction:

http://www.bridgebas...-travels-south/

was that, "if there was an infraction by an opponent, as a minimum equity should be restored", as best as I recall his words. I asked him whether he thought anyone should ever be able to gain from an infraction, and he replied, tersely as he often does, "No". I think he is right.

I am aware of Law 12B2, but I think you are misinterpreting it. Rectification is defined by the (general) law as: "Rectification is a remedy whereby a court orders a change in a written document to reflect what it ought to have said in the first place. It is an equitable remedy, which means the circumstances where it can be applied are limited."

By analogy, "rectification" in bridge should reflect what would have happened had the infraction not occurred. I agree that the TD cannot adjust if restoring the situation to what would have happened without the infraction is unduly severe or advantageous, but I do not think you can have "negative" rectification provided by a law. If so, it is not "rectification". This is what happened in this case:

http://www.bridgebas...ble-infraction/

I now wholeheartedly agree, and a US director agreed with your view, that Law 23 does not apply. I think Law 50E does apply, but I do not think it matters if one decides it does not. The law "failed to provide rectification" in the case of the infraction(s) therein, rather than it provided rectification which was unduly severe or advantageous. The declarer was worse off after the infraction in that he went off in a contract he was about to make. I cannot agree that rectification is provided if the offender is better off as a result of the infraction, whether or not they could have known. In my view, in the above and similar cases, when the laws fail to restore the non-offender to the situation he was in before the infraction, the TD should apply Law 12A2, especially if Law 23 is deemed inapplicable. Whether or not it is decided that Law 50E or other laws intended to provide remedy apply.

"The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." When you do so, you are awarding an adjusted score for the reason that the laws failed to provide rectification in that they did not restore the non-offender to the situation before the infraction. The interchange of "indemnity" and "rectification" does not seem to be relevant.

It's not just my feeling. It's the law.

[Trinidad]

The key thing is whether the non-offender had any influence on the result.

When the non-offender has no influence on his bad result, then it is obvious (at least to me) to rectify.
On the other extreme is the non-offender who caused his own bad result. Then you don't rectify (at least not for the NOS).

In between there may be the case where a non-offending declarer does everything right, but ends up with a trick less then he would have had without the infraction. But the doing everything right and going wrong was "rub of the green".

Suppose the layout of a suit is:

       ATxx
Qxx          J
       K9xxx

After having won trick 1 in dummy (in another suit), declarer plays a small card in this suit from dummy, notes the fall of the J, applies restricted choice, finesses West for the queen and takes all the tricks in the suit.

But now, we add an infraction. During trick one, East puts his hand down to write down the contract on his private score card and -oops- the jack flips face up on the table. The TD rules that it is a major penalty card. Declarer sees that it is an about even guess whether to play East or West for the queen (there are no restricted choice considerations). He also sees that he can pick up QJxx with East, if he sees that West shows out. He decides to play for "8 ever, 9 never", unless he sees West showing out. So, he starts with the ace from dummy... and loses a trick in the suit.

One can argue that declarer would have never lost a trick without the infraction, but that is not the way to go, IMO. The non-offending declaring was given extra options. If this situation would occur 100 times, in the long run the extra options would be advantageous to him. The fact that on this particular board the advantage happened to work against declarer is not relevant. No rectification, but a lot of sympathy for declarer.

Rik

[gordontd]

And your reply to Zelandakh's post #32 above, lamford?

[lamford]

[quote name='Trinidad' timestamp='1442486962' post='861937']
Suppose the layout of a suit is:

       ATxx
Qxx          J
       K9xxx

After having won trick 1 in dummy (in another suit), declarer plays a small card in this suit from dummy, notes the fall of the J, applies restricted choice, finesses West for the queen and takes all the tricks in the suit.

But now, we add an infraction. During trick one, East puts his hand down to write down the contract on his private score card and -oops- the jack flips face up on the table. The TD rules that it is a major penalty card. Declarer sees that it is an about even guess whether to play East or West for the queen (there are no restricted choice considerations). He also sees that he can pick up QJxx with East, if he sees that West shows out. He decides to play for "8 ever, 9 never", unless he sees West showing out. So, he starts with the ace from dummy... and loses a trick in the suit.

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-September-17, 04:49, said:

Suppose the layout of a suit is:

       ATxx
Qxx          J
       K9xxx

After having won trick 1 in dummy (in another suit), declarer plays a small card in this suit from dummy, notes the fall of the J, applies restricted choice, finesses West for the queen and takes all the tricks in the suit.

But now, we add an infraction. During trick one, East puts his hand down to write down the contract on his private score card and -oops- the jack flips face up on the table. The TD rules that it is a major penalty card. Declarer sees that it is an about even guess whether to play East or West for the queen (there are no restricted choice considerations). He also sees that he can pick up QJxx with East, if he sees that West shows out. He decides to play for "8 ever, 9 never", unless he sees West showing out. So, he starts with the ace from dummy... and loses a trick in the suit.

One can argue that declarer would have never lost a trick without the infraction, but that is not the way to go, IMO. The non-offending declaring was given extra options. If this situation would occur 100 times, in the long run the extra options would be advantageous to him. The fact that on this particular board the advantage happened to work against declarer is not relevant. No rectification, but a lot of sympathy for declarer.

Rik

I disagree here on two grounds. One is that the Probst cheat could have known that exposing the jack of hearts could work to his advantage. He could have been aware, presumably, that declarer had nine trumps and that dropping the jack could gain (when partner has Qxx). There was a similar hand on here many moons ago, where declarer led the queen of trumps from South QJTxx opposite Axxxx and West played one and dropped the other of two small cards. The majority (as I recall) wanted to adjust when declarer misguessed and West had Kxx but not adjust when East had stiff K. The rectification was putting the declarer in the situation before the infraction occurred.

In your example, the declarer might well have started the suit from the other hand, so he was actually better off when the jack dropped. And you are mistaken in not thinking there is a restricted choice situation. If East had QJ doubleton of hearts, he would have been equally likely to drop the queen, if he only dropped one card. Declarer butchered the hand by not playing for a singleton jack now. The infraction did not cause him to go off; his own incompetence did. So I agree with no adjustment, as the non-offender was responsible for his own bad result.

[blackshoe]

In chapter one of TFLB, I find

Quote

Rectification: The remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director’s attention.

We all know, I think, that there are some irregularities for which the law does not provide "remedial provisions". Though frankly right at the moment I can't think of one.

Another word used in this area of the laws is "indemnity". The laws do not define this, but my dictionary does:

Quote

Indemnity: security or protection against a loss or other financial burden; security against or exemption from legal responsibility for one's actions; a sum of money paid as compensation

It seems that technically indemnity is about money — but not in bridge. From my thesaurus, one synonym is "reparations". This fits fairly well. Indemnity repairs damage in the NOS score. The way the TD does that is the rectification. If a law specifies a rectification other than score adjustment for a "particular type of offense" — as it does for, say, a LOOT — then the TD is not permitted to award an adjusted score on the grounds, essentially, that the outcome wasn't "fair". If the law provides no rectification at all, no "reparation", then the TD can use Law 12A1.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-15, 07:29, said:

So if partner gets silenced and you take a blind punt at 3NT and that ends up being a lucky make with 20hcp or so, you think this should be rectified by an adjusted score?

The laws generally allow the TD to adjust when someone is silenced, and the offender gains, or after any IB:

27 D. Non-offending Side Damaged
If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred.

and in various places:
"See Law 23 if the pass damages the non-offending side."

So, is the TD to decide with every enforced pass whether the offender could have been aware, or is it assumed that he could have been? Note that it does not say "was". It says "could". On the principle that the TD adjusts if a pair gets lucky after an IB and also adjusts if a pair gets lucky after a forced pass, I would say, yes, you do award an adjusted score. There seems to be an inconsistency here, in that 27D provides for an adjustment after an IB but not after a pass out of turn for example.

The principle in all these cases is "rectification". The TD should recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid (or other infraction it matters not) not occurred. And if the Laws do not provide rectification for an infraction, then Law 12A1 kicks in. There is an argument that the rectification was to force someone to guess the contract, and that rectification was positive for the non-offender. The lucky guess to bid 3NT was a separate action and rectification had occurred before that. You could also argue that the decision to bid 3NT was not "with assistance gained from the infraction" and that 27D does not apply.

The Laws do seem, however, to allow SB to have his snake and eat it (thanks for that Rik!) and that the assumption is that crime cannot pay!

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-September-17, 05:23, said:

If a law specifies a rectification other than score adjustment for a "particular type of offense" — as it does for, say, a LOOT — then the TD is not permitted to award an adjusted score on the grounds, essentially, that the outcome wasn't "fair".

I disagree. If someone leads the ace of trumps out of turn against a slam, and the effect is that you, in a rare moment of perspicacity, did not duck a side suit with an ace when declarer led his singleton towards KJxx in dummy, I hope you would adjust. Even though the person leading the ace of trumps could not reasonably know he would gain in this way, especially if he was told they had all the key cards but one. Essentially you apply Law 23 if you think he could have known, Law 12A1 if you think he could not have known. It does not make any difference. Note here that all the LOOT penalties in the world are of no use to declarer.

In this example, the Laws have not provided rectification. If the rectification is negative for the non-offender, then it is not rectification.

blackshoe, on 2015-September-17, 05:23, said:

Indemnity repairs damage [to] the NOS score.

I agree. Therefore "indemnity" should at least restore the non-offender to the same position as before the infraction.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2015-September-17, 05:30, said:

On the principle that the TD adjusts if a pair gets lucky after an IB and also adjusts if a pair gets lucky after a forced pass, I would say, yes, you do award an adjusted score. There seems to be an inconsistency here, in that 27D provides for an adjustment after an IB but not after a pass out of turn for example.

We give trainee club directors an exercise in which West has a balanced 16 count with a spade fit and East a good weak two in spades. West is dealer but East opens 2♠ out of turn. It's not accepted, and East repeats 2♠ when two passes (one of them forced) come round to him. He's left to play there and makes eight tricks, just as every other declarer does, but all the others have bid game.

Older versions of the laws said something about there being no further adjustment once a penalty has been paid for an infraction, and it was clearer then that that applied to this sort of situation. The penalty is West's enforced pass, and there is no further adjustment whether East guesses to bid 2♠ again or has a go at 4♠. But now the word "penalty" has largely been replaced by "rectification", I think with the intention of making it more inclusive, to embrace such things as the option of the opponents to accept an irregularity. I think the use of the word "rectification" in law 12B2 is intended to cover any application of law by the TD which seeks to make redress for an infraction, whether it actually does nor not.

So I think Gordon (and possibly Pran) are right, there cannot be any further adjustment here unless there's a specific law (such as law 23) permitting such adjustment. It just feels less just in this case, where the offender took it upon himself to tell the wrong defender to make a lead. This seems a bigger infraction than just opening out of turn, and less deserving of the "rub of the green".

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2015-September-14, 11:32, said:

I disagree with that. I think that a club is out of the question, and it is close between a spade and a heart. I think we should poll ten peers of West and ask them what they would lead and assign a weighted score accordingly. And no, we do not tell them about North's ill-chosen remark. If it is pairs, I would lead a heart, but at teams I would lead the ten of spades. You need far less in spades than in hearts to beat the contract.

I was not suggesting (although my post which you quote does) giving no fraction of 3NT-3, just less than 50%, because I think West is more likely to lead a heart. I was thinking it was pairs, I take your point about teams, and I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, and perhaps give more than 50% of that score. Just not 100%.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-September-17, 05:06, said:

I disagree here on two grounds. One is that the Probst cheat could have known that exposing the jack of hearts could work to his advantage. He could have been aware, presumably, that declarer had nine trumps and that dropping the jack could gain (when partner has Qxx). There was a similar hand on here many moons ago, where declarer led the queen of trumps from South QJTxx opposite Axxxx and West played one and dropped the other of two small cards. The majority (as I recall) wanted to adjust when declarer misguessed and West had Kxx but not adjust when East had stiff K. The rectification was putting the declarer in the situation before the infraction occurred.

In your example, the declarer might well have started the suit from the other hand, so he was actually better off when the jack dropped. And you are mistaken in not thinking there is a restricted choice situation. If East had QJ doubleton of hearts, he would have been equally likely to drop the queen, if he only dropped one card. Declarer butchered the hand by not playing for a singleton jack now. The infraction did not cause him to go off; his own incompetence did. So I agree with no adjustment, as the non-offender was responsible for his own bad result.

A Probst cheat situation only occurs when the infraction could have been intentional (cheating is always intentional). That was not the case here. (And if you think it was, please assume that it wasn't, for the sake of the simplicity of the example.)

And no, the infraction is not a restricted choice situation, since Easy could also have dropped one of the x's in the suit with equal probability to the queen and jack. Restricted choice applies when the player's choice is restricted. The player didn't choose to drop the J and the drop is not restricted. It is entirely random. If you take it as given that he will drop exactly one card, any of his 13 cards is equally likely.

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-September-17, 08:17, said:

A Probst cheat situation only occurs when the infraction could have been intentional (cheating is always intentional). That was not the case here. (And if you think it was, please assume that it wasn't, for the sake of the simplicity of the example.)

And no, the infraction is not a restricted choice situation, since Easy could also have dropped one of the x's in the suit with equal probability to the queen and jack. Restricted choice applies when the player's choice is restricted. The player didn't choose to drop the J and the drop is not restricted. It is entirely random. If you take it as given that he will drop exactly one card, any of his 13 cards is equally likely.

Rik

There is no requirement for a Law 23 adjustment for any suggestion of intentional cheating, and the Probst cheat is so called as we know that he was not cheating, but could have been aware. So, even if we are 100% convinced that he dropped the jack of hearts accidentally, he could have been aware that it would benefit him.

And I disagree also with your argument on restricted choice, which is again a bit of an oxymoron, as with a singleton honour there is no choice. All we know is that East was dealt the jack of hearts. Say we define a new game, Bridge2, where East is obliged to show you one of his trumps, if he has Jx, then on the second round, his partner's queen will pop up. If he has Jxx he has already screwed up. If he has QJx, his fingerfehler has not cost. So, we are only concerned with the situations where he has QJ doubleton or J singleton. With the former, in Bridge2, some random force will drop one of the two honours at random, or East will chooose at random. With the latter, he has to drop the jack of hearts.

It is EXACTLY the same as a restricted choice situation, which is really a free choice situation. So his play was so bad, that even I were adjusting, I would deny him redress, as playing for the drop was SEWoG (just joking).

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2015-September-17, 08:01, said:

I was not suggesting (although my post which you quote does) giving no fraction of 3NT-3, just less than 50%, because I think West is more likely to lead a heart. I was thinking it was pairs, I take your point about teams, and I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, and perhaps give more than 50% of that score. Just not 100%.

I do not know if it is teams or pairs, and posted it in the intermediate forum, but only three people replied, and two led a heart. Even the one voting for a spade seemed facetious. I would be happy with 33% of 3NT-3 and 67% of 3NT=, but I would poll some more people. My simulation suggests a spade is better, but what is relevant is what a player of the same calibre would do.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2015-September-17, 07:55, said:

I think the use of the word "rectification" in law 12B2 is intended to cover any application of law by the TD which seeks to make redress for an infraction, whether it actually does nor not.

If that were the case, the Law 12B2 would (or should) read "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the application of a Law is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side." It doesn't say that. Therefore it means what it says. If there is no rectification provided by the Law, in that the non-offenders are damaged, then he should adjust the score. I argue that rectification cannot be negative, while an adjustment can. To rectify means to put or set right, not to make worse.

The example with the pass out of turn is complex. Any bid out of turn (as here) could damage the non-offenders. Somebody, at our club, once opened a weak two diamonds out of turn, which prevented their partner going for 1100 in their own major! Do you decide that they could have known? I think the acid test is solely whether the law provided rectification. If it did not, or what you call "rectification" is negative, then the TD adjusts under 12A1. That is even clearer. Indemnity seems a stronger word than rectification.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2015-September-17, 09:15, said:

There is no requirement for a Law 23 adjustment for any suggestion of intentional cheating, and the Probst cheat is so called as we know that he was not cheating, but could have been aware. So, even if we are 100% convinced that he dropped the jack of hearts accidentally, he could have been aware that it would benefit him.

You seem to believe that any time a player gains from an infraction they could have been aware that it would benefit them. I'll give you an example (from real life) that I think indicates this is not so. A defender is about to play a card that will win the trick. Accidentally they pull out the one next to it, from a different suit, but they notice before the revoke is established and correct it so that they win the trick.

Because the accidentally played card was an honour, it now has to be played. I have seen a situation when such a card was the only card to defeat the contract and was not the card the player would have played next. They have gained from the infraction but clearly could not have known that this might be the case, because if they had done so, all they had to do was play the card, not create a situation where the card was a penalty card that had to be played!

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2015-September-17, 09:42, said:

You seem to believe that any time a player gains from an infraction they could have been aware that it would benefit them. I'll give you an example (from real life) that I think indicates this is not so. A defender is about to play a card that will win the trick. Accidentally they pull out the one next to it, from a different suit, but they notice before the revoke is established and correct it so that they win the trick.

Because the accidentally played card was an honour, it now has to be played. I have seen a situation when such a card was the only card to defeat the contract and was not the card the player would have played next. They have gained from the infraction

They have not gained from the infraction. As you observed, they are in exactly the same position as if they won the trick and led the other card to the next trick. How have they gained? The other card might well have been a hopeless defence. You are arguing that they benefited from being forced to defend correctly!

I do not believe that any time a player gains from an infraction they "could" have been aware, as you know. I have twice advised you that I do not think the players who had an MPC in the Double Infraction thread could have been aware, once in this thread, and once by private email, so your assertion is not valid. The Probst cheat is defined as someone who was almost certainly not cheating but could have been aware. A completely separate scenario. Out of interest, how would you rule on the QJTxx opposite Axxxx scenario?

Just to summarise. I believe that if a Law fails to provide rectification, in that application of that Law makes someone worse off, then the TD should award an adjusted score. In essence, you must not be able to gain from an infraction, whether or not you knew you would. If we disagree on that principle, then we have to agree to differ.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2015-September-17, 04:05, said:

I am aware of Law 12B2, but I think you are misinterpreting it. Rectification is defined by the (general) law as: "Rectification is a remedy whereby a court orders a change in a written document to reflect what it ought to have said in the first place. It is an equitable remedy, which means the circumstances where it can be applied are limited."

By analogy, "rectification" in bridge should reflect what would have happened had the infraction not occurred. I agree that the TD cannot adjust if restoring the situation to what would have happened without the infraction is unduly severe or advantageous, but I do not think you can have "negative" rectification provided by a law. If so, it is not "rectification".

You seem to argue that it is not indemnity if it does not perfectly restore equity. How then could the circumstance described in L12B2 ever arise? If I say the rectification was unduly advantageous to the NOS and therefore we are told by L12B2 we cannot make an adjustment, you then say that the laws have not provided indemnity and so you can use L12A1.

I don't think indemnity requires perfect restitution. It's a word commonly used in liability insurance in which the limits of the indemnity are frequently defined, clearly recognising that it may fall short of perfect restitution.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2015-September-17, 09:56, said:

You seem to argue that it is not indemnity if it does not perfectly restore equity. How then could the circumstance described in L12B2 ever arise? If I say the rectification was unduly advantageous to the NOS and therefore we are told by L12B2 we cannot make an adjustment, you then say that the laws have not provided indemnity and so you can use L12A1.

I don't think indemnity requires perfect restitution. It's a word commonly used in liability insurance in which the limits of the indemnity are frequently defined, clearly recognising that it may fall short of perfect restitution.

In the case of the Double Infraction, there was no positive rectification for the non-offending side, therefore L12B2 does not apply. There are plenty of example of rectification with insufficient bids not costing, or revokes not costing, because the rectification, making the bid sufficient or transferring one trick, just restores equity. However the rectification is still positive or zero. In the example in question, the rectification was, effectively, to reduce the number of tricks taken by the declarer from 10 to 9. How can that be rectification? And surely that is a prime example of what is intended by L12A1?

I did not argue, nor seem to argue, that it is not indemnity if it does not perfectly restore equity. I believe that when adjusting, the TD should endeavour to restore equity as closely as possible, and should not give only 90% to the non-offenders as a 'thieving' insurance company might. I argue that a rectification which damages the non-offender is no rectification at all. For what it is worth, I am told the declarer in Double Infraction would have settled for anything that "fell short of perfect restitution". Instead, I believe he was given 100% of 4S-1.