Hi Ed

I think this is quite clear cut (shoot me down any National directors who see it differently :)

The table result should stand.

Once the correct rectification is made there is no further adjustment even if the offending side appears to gain from their infraction (thats in the laws somewhere - I don't have a lawbook handy right now)

Unless Law 23 kicks in "the offending could have known the infraction could benefit his side"

An example of that scenario is:
West opens 4H
South has a stack of hearts and wants to double it (and doesn't want partner to bid before or after he doubles)
So South doubles out of turn. Cancelled and North must pass.
South doubles again.

Mission accomplished

Clearly South "could have known" the double out of turn would be to his advantage so that result would be adjusted.
Even if there was compelling evidence South didn't do that intentionally.

"Could have known" doesn't necessarily mean "did know"

Thanks Nick.

It would be nice if a National Director offered their opinion, but I have yet to see one contribute to this forum - so it will just have to be us lesser mortals who debate this!

So, that said, I respectfully disagree with you entirely. Law 23 - well of course the offender "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the nonoffending side". That is not to say s/he offended on purpose, but when they did it surely they knew it could damage the other side. If I revoke I don't do it on purpose but I'm aware when I do it that it could damage the other side - any infraction can and we all know this. Law 23 needs to be scrapped IMO.

That aside, surely Law 12 overrides any consideration of Law 23. 12A1: "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" and then the most important Law in the whole book 12B1: "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. 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"

Surely this screams out that, in the scenario I posted, there has to be an adjustment. How can you allow NS to gain a top board after making an infraction? It is completely contrary to 12B1. I would be horrified if I got a bottom board in this way.

When mentoring / advising directors I always point to 12B1 as the first commandment of the Laws of Bridge. If we ignore that, then surely we should just chuck the rule book away and let people do whatever they want.

Ed

Hi Ed

The "could have known" issue is critical here

A player who opens 1NT out of turn can't possibly know whether that is the optimum contract or not.

And when partner is forced to pass he has to guess
And he happened to guess right

Thats just bad luck for the opponents
And doubly bad luck because if the offender knew how many points partner had he would have guessed wrong

Nick

PS: I concur with your comments about lack of National directors input to this forum! 

Under the new laws (as I understand them) North would be able to bid (subject to UI from Souths withdrawn bid) 

On Law 12...

I feel that adjusting the result when 3NT goes light (while keeping it when 3NT makes) gives the NOS too much.  Sure, there was an infraction but the NOS are now odds on to gain no matter what the cards may hold.

Law 12 contains a couple of restrictions.  First, 12A says "... the Director may award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so..." and 12A1 talks about the situaton where the "Laws do not provide indemnity to a nonoffending contestant for the particular type of violition committed by an opponent." (emph added)

I take law 12 to describe how and when an adjustment is to be made when the laws specifically allow for the possibility of an adjustment.  Law 12 doesn't override law 23, rather if a law like 23 allows for the possibility of an adjusted score then law 12 is consulted to determine whether an adjusted score is appropriate, eg deal with wild or gambling actions, and to determine what sort of adjustment it should be.  (I agree with Nick that law 23 doesn't seem to apply in this case.)

Law 12A's reference to particular types of violation is a reference to those infringements where there are no specific penalties.  (Not the case for law 31B)  The ACBL's "Duplicate Decisions" comments as follows:

12 Director’s Discretionary Powers (pp11-12)

"When the appropriate Law provides for rectification (or states that there is to be no rectification), the Director may not adjust the score to produce equity. The Director must give a book ruling. The Director may adjust the score if an incorrect penalty has been paid.  Some of the Laws allow the Director to assign an adjusted score under specified circumstances.

"Many Laws specify correct procedure but do not offer specific penalties for violation. Examples: a player may not inspect a quitted trick; a player may not handle an opponent’s cards; a review of the auction must be given by an opponent of the player requesting it.  A violator is liable to penalty (Law 90, Procedural Penalties), but the innocent side is assigned no redress. If there is damage (e.g., declarer may have made his contract because of his illegal inspection of a previous trick), the Director has the authority to assign an adjusted score under Law 12.

"The objective of score adjustments is to rectify any damage to the non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by the offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than they would have if
the infraction had not occurred."

The "book ruling" is sometimes a windfall for the NOS, and sometimes an unwanted dump of snow.  Such is life.

On the elephants that have been conspicuous by their absence from the forum...

I wonder if they wish to avoid being expected to make Solomon-like judgements on the basis of third hand accounts of half the facts.  Or whether they prefer to have their discussions - for such there must surely be - in some more gentlemanly and discrete setting, away from the hoi palloi of social media.

Whether from lethargy, fear, disdain or whatever, perhaps they'e missing out on an opportunity to assist those who are doing the work.

Not that I wish to be controversial!  Indeed the Social Media Policy and its attendant fines for any disparaging commentary compel me to aver that their policy must infallibly be for the best in an organisation with the best of all possible policies.