[gnasher]

Isn't it normal to deal with the breach of the laws and the damage separately? That is, you should issue a procedural penalty for the breach of Law 40A3, and also rectify any damage as instructed by Law 40C1, but only if there actually is damage.

My main objections to the EBU's approach are:
- It assumes that there is damage even when there might not be. If I used a CPU to get to a contract that we would have got to regardless of our methods, why should the opponents get 60%?
- It doesn't attempt to make the adjustment proportional to the damage. If we were heading for a zero until we used a CPU to dig ourselves out of the hole, why should the opponents get only 60%?
- It assumes that the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, even when that's untrue.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-July-21, 13:21

[bluejak]

c_corgi, on 2012-July-21, 03:52, said:

I do not see how invoking L40C1 as directed by L40A3 is "despite" the law. Since L40C1 contains scope to rectify damage and also to punish offenders the infraction is not being permitted. Surely creating a regulation to treat an infraction in a different way to that prescribed by the laws is acting despite the law.

True, but not relevant here.

gnasher, on 2012-July-21, 05:21, said:

Isn't it normal to deal with the breach of the laws and the damage separately? That is, you should issue a procedural penalty for the breach of Law 40A3, and also rectify any damage as instructed by Law 40C1, but only if there actually is damage.

My main objections to the EBU's approach are:
- It assumes that there is damage even when there might not be. If I used a CPU to get to a contract that we would have got to regardless of our methods, why should the opponents get 60%?
- It doesn't attempt to make the adjustment proportional to the damage. If we were heading for a zero until we used a CPU to dig ourselves out of the hole, why should the opponents get only 60%?
- It assumes that the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, even when that's untrue.

The EBU has decided that it is too difficult to adjust in these circumstances so has produced a legal regulation based on the laws. I just think that your objections are incorrect.

Of course, if you try to adjust wrongly, as so many people do, by not following the law exactly, you will no doubt think it easy. But that is because people do not assume that the adjustment applies instead of the infraction: they tend to adjust from after the infraction, which is incorrect.

Of course, there are no doubt exceptions. But the EBU approach seems to me to get far more correct rulings than the approach other people think correct, where they adjust from the wrong point. I think practical approaches that come to correct conclusions usually are better than theoretical approaches, badly applied, leading to continuous wrong rulings.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-July-24, 07:01, said:

The EBU has decided that it is too difficult to adjust in these circumstances so has produced a legal regulation based on the laws. I just think that your objections are incorrect.

Of course, if you try to adjust wrongly, as so many people do, by not following the law exactly, you will no doubt think it easy. But that is because people do not assume that the adjustment applies instead of the infraction: they tend to adjust from after the infraction, which is incorrect.

Of course, there are no doubt exceptions. But the EBU approach seems to me to get far more correct rulings than the approach other people think correct, where they adjust from the wrong point. I think practical approaches that come to correct conclusions usually are better than theoretical approaches, badly applied, leading to continuous wrong rulings.

I wasn't advocating not following the law, I didn't suggest that it was easy, and so far as I know I wasn't suggesting adjusting from the wrong point.

I was arguing for a procedure that both follows the law and attempts to achieve equity. I gave three reasons why the EBU's approach doesn't produce a fair result. I don't think it's much of an answer to say "Well, that's how we do it, and at least it's not as bad as how some other people do it." Nor does it make much sense to say "I just think that your objections are incorrect" without giving any reasons for this belief.

[bluejak]

Most people try to adjust wrongly. The problem with theoretical discussions is it is very difficult to show how they are wrong which is why I do not like them and far prefer arguments based on actual hands. This is a very difficult subject to argue form a theoretical standpoint which is why I feel it is not possible to do. Certainly your arguments are unconvincing for that reason.

[semeai]

Come to the friendly natural bidding forum for a thread on how you'd take the 2♥ bid here if your regular partner perpetrated it opposite you. Please leave all laws discussions at the door; you may pick them back up on the way out.