[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2017-July-31, 23:15, said:

Then it is at the discretion of the director.

Again, which law?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-01, 07:33, said:

Again, which law?

The one you mentioned was 73A.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-August-01, 09:04, said:

The one you mentioned was 73A.

I think he meant which law gives the TD discretion to determine the rectification when Law 73A doesn't specify one?

I think 82B provides the TD with general ability to determine rectifications of procedural errors.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2017-July-31, 08:48, said:

Are we still talking about the original case?
The OP says he decided to pass, so there was no error for him to realise.
The original Pass was not unintended but ChCh appears to have lied in suggesting it was.

My correspondent, the narrator, says ChCh "decided to pass" as that was his opinion of the most likely situation. ChCh says he "decided to redouble" but selected the pass card in error. In the OP ChCh stated: "I thought I had taken out the redouble card".

And in reply to blackshoe, the laws empower the TD to impose penalties for an irregularity even if none is prescribed. 72C is one place to start.

[blackshoe]

Penalties are one thing. Rectification is another.

82B says "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may:
1. award an adjusted score as permitted by these Laws.
2. require, postpone or cancel the play of a board.
3. exercise any other power given to him in these Laws.

So, what is the director going to do in this situation? If he's going through 82B3, what power is he exercising, and which law gives it to him? If 82B2, what is the justification? If 82B1, specify which law allows an adjusted score.

72C (I presume you're talking about the 2017 72C, since there isn't one in the 2007/2008 book) is the wonderful (NOT!) "could have known" thing. I really don't like going there, and if you are going to go there, I think you have to be able to reasonably justify the use of that law.

My point to all this, mostly, is that when making a ruling, one ought to specify the law(s) under which the ruling is made, especially here (though directors doing the same at the table is highly desirable too).

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-01, 20:36, said:

Penalties are one thing. Rectification is another.

82B says "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may:
1. award an adjusted score as permitted by these Laws.
2. require, postpone or cancel the play of a board.
3. exercise any other power given to him in these Laws.

So, what is the director going to do in this situation? If he's going through 82B3, what power is he exercising, and which law gives it to him? If 82B2, what is the justification? If 82B1, specify which law allows an adjusted score.

72C (I presume you're talking about the 2017 72C, since there isn't one in the 2007/2008 book) is the wonderful (NOT!) "could have known" thing. I really don't like going there, and if you are going to go there, I think you have to be able to reasonably justify the use of that law.

My point to all this, mostly, is that when making a ruling, one ought to specify the law(s) under which the ruling is made, especially here (though directors doing the same at the table is highly desirable too).

I wonder why nobody mentions Law 12A1?
All it takes to use this law is to establish that there has been an irregularity and that a non-offending side has been insufficiently compensated from resulting damage.

[lamford]

pran, on 2017-August-02, 01:28, said:

I wonder why nobody mentions Law 12A1?
All it takes to use this law is to establish that there has been an irregularity and that a non-offending side has been insufficiently compensated from resulting damage.

The EBU stance on this, certainly two years ago, was that there needed to be awareness that an irregularity could well damage the non-offenders. A major penalty card benefited an offender, but, because it was (correctly) deemed that the player could not have been aware that it would, no adjustment was made and it was deemed rub of the green. I argued unsuccessfully at the time that 12A1 should be applied, but this was rejected.

[pran]

lamford, on 2017-August-02, 03:37, said:

The EBU stance on this, certainly two years ago, was that there needed to be awareness that an irregularity could well damage the non-offenders. A major penalty card benefited an offender, but, because it was (correctly) deemed that the player could not have been aware that it would, no adjustment was made and it was deemed rub of the green. I argued unsuccessfully at the time that 12A1 should be applied, but this was rejected.

A (major) penalty card is no irregularity, it is the consequence of an irregularity. So this EBU opinion is a red herring in a discussion of adjusting a score because of an irregularity uncder Law 12 from which a non-offending side does not receive full compensation for damage.

There is no prerequisite for the application of Law 12A1 that there needed to be awareness that an irregularity could well damage the non-offenders once the Director has established as a fact that such damage has occurred and not been fully compensated.

[lamford]

pran, on 2017-August-02, 07:45, said:

There is no prerequisite for the application of Law 12A1 that there needed to be awareness that an irregularity could well damage the non-offenders once the Director has established as a fact that such damage has occurred and not been fully compensated.

In the case in question (linked below) the effect was that declarer went off in a contract he would have made without the irregularity. However, RMB1 at the time, with other EBU officials concurring, felt that there did need to be awareness of possible damage for Law 12A1 to be applied. Also, and I hope I am not misquoting him, VixTD concurred with the EBU view. I note campboy also agreed with the Chief TD but I dissented. So the view was that "awareness" was necessary.

http://www.bridgebas...ic/72085-double infraction/page__p__859045__fromsearch__1#entry859045