[Vampyr]

How about this:

Quote

When there has been an irregularity, the Director shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed).When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

Isn't this what everyone wants?

[Zelandakh]

 Vampyr, on 2016-May-22, 05:51, said:

Isn't this what everyone wants?

That is no good as it throws out the rub of the green results Stefanie. For example, you receive UI from partner that they are weaker than they might be and do the ethical thing by bidding a tight game. That turns out to be a lucky make requiring 3 or 4 things to be right. You would never have bid the game without the irregularity so your suggestion would take it away. Is this really what you want?

[nige1]

 Vampyr, on 2016-May-18, 13:37, said:

In any case, how do we rule when A. Player would certainly be aware, but the player is question is not known to ever be aware of anything?

Perhaps you rule that the latter player couldn't have been aware.

[gordontd]

 Vampyr, on 2016-May-22, 05:51, said:

Isn't this what everyone wants?

No.

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2016-May-22, 13:05, said:

No.

I agree. But I would guess that over half of bridge players would not want an intentional irregularity to gain, even if the perpetrator could not work out how it would. I would go further and get rid of the requirement "could have been aware" altogether, so that an irregularity can never gain. Pran says it is just there so that there is no accusation of cheating.

Rub of the green. Bah ... humbug ... there is enough luck in bridge already.