Real damage versus advantage for offending side

An “open invitation” response on Law 12B/C to reinforce the difference between real damage to the non-offenders and any advantage gained by an offending side.

Proposed text for Law 12B1

[New text in italics. First attempt did not work: struck through.]

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. Whereas advantage exists when, following an infraction, the offending side obtains a table result more favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred. There is an adjusted score (at least for the offending side) when they have gained an advantage, even if there is no damage There may be an advantage for the offending side, whether or not there is any damage to the nonoffending side, in which case there may still be an adjustment for the offending side — see C1(b).

Proposed additional text for Law 12C1(b)

If all the damage is self-inflicted, the non-offending side keep the score obtained in play.

Open season on Law 27

An “open invitation” response on Law 27.

Proposed text for Law 27B

1. If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call. Then the auction proceeds without further rectification but see D following.
2. If the offender attempts to replace one insufficient bid with another, then the LHO may accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows. If the LHO does not accept the substituted insufficient bid, the Director rules as in 1.

Proposed text for Law 27D

According to Law 16D, the insufficient bid and any other withdrawn calls are unauthosied to offender's partner and Law 16B applies.

Alternative text for Law 27B

If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (but see 3 following). Then:

1. if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination the auction proceeds without further rectification (regardless of the meaning of the insufficient bid or the correction), but see D following.
2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 16 and Law 23.
3. if the offender attempts to substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid the attempted call is cancelled. The offender must replace it as the foregoing allows.
4. if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another, then the LHO may accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows. If the LHO does not accept the substituted insufficient bid, the Director rules as above.

With the same revision for Law 27D.

Philip Madoc

The actor, Philip Madoc died last week. He lived near St Albans and knew my father. We always looked out for him in television in 1970s — “Don't tell him Pike” was the most memorable. Given his role in The Life and Times of David Lloyd George, I am reminded of the nonsense song lyric: Lloyd George Knew My Father.

Proposed additional text for Law 45D

In response to the “open invitation” from the WBFLC, I plan to post possible responses here. Comments welcome.

Law 45D

I think Law 45D is ambiguous as to what happens if the time limit expires. I am sure the trick consists of the cards placed in the played position, and I assume that if dummy led, “the suit led” (for the purposes of revoke/ownership) is deemed to be the suit of card placed in the played position (not the suit of the card named by declarer).

(An alternative would be to stipulate that any card that is either of the suit misplayed or the suit named is not a revoke.)

Proposed additional text for Law 45D

If attention is drawn after each side has played to the next trick, the trick stands as played: the card misplayed by dummy becomes the card played to the trick. If dummy led to trick then ownership of the trick and any revoke is determined with respect to the suit of the card misplayed by dummy (not the suit of the card named by declarer).