Re: Washington Appeal N9

--===============0459237359==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f517250578974902"

--000000000000f517250578974902
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Two of the six panelists agree with you that Law 12c1(e)(ii) should apply:
"The non-offending side does not receive relief for such part of its damage
as is self- inflicted."

The others seem not to have considered the issue, just as the TD and
"Panel" (of one) seem not to have considered it.

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:30 PM Jeff Ford <[email protected]> wrote:

> Appeal is part of http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2016Washington.pdf
>
> The gist of the hand is that E/W made a bid (4S) that was ruled illegal
> because of UI, and that N/S doubled the final contract. Some of the
> commentators suggested that the double was wild or gambling so N/S should
> keep their result on the hand of 4SX making exactly.
>
> Is this the correct application of law? I thought that when adjudicating a
> case like this that the gambling side was supposed to keep the part of
> their result that came from the gamble, but not the entirety of the bad
> result including the infraction of the other side.
>
> As this case was from a BAM hand, this would involve looking at the
> difference between comparing with the other table at +620 and at +990 where
> it's possible the double actually had no effect.
>
> Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>

--000000000000f517250578974902
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Two of the six=C2=A0panelists agree with you that Law 12c1=
(e)(ii) should apply: &quot;The non-offending side does not receive relief =
for such part of its damage as is self- inflicted.&quot; <br><br>The others=
 seem not to have considered the issue, just as the TD and &quot;Panel&quot=
; (of one) seem not to have considered it.</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:30 PM Jeff Ford &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px=
 #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Appeal is part of=C2=A0<a hr=
ef=3D"http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2016Washington.pdf" target=3D"_blank">=
http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2016Washington.pdf</a><div><br></div><div>Th=
e gist of the hand is that E/W made a bid (4S) that was ruled illegal becau=
se of UI, and that N/S doubled the final contract. Some of the commentators=
 suggested that the double was wild or gambling so N/S should keep their re=
sult on the hand of 4SX making exactly.</div><div><br></div><div>Is this th=
e correct application of law? I thought that when adjudicating a case like =
this that the gambling side was supposed to keep the part of their result t=
hat came from the gamble, but not the entirety of the bad result including =
the infraction of the other side.</div><div><br></div><div>As this case was=
 from a BAM hand, this would involve looking at the difference between comp=
aring with the other table at=C2=A0+620 and at=C2=A0+990 where it&#39;s pos=
sible the double actually had no effect.</div><div><br></div><div>Jeff</div=
><div><br></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Blml mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml" rel=3D"noreferrer"=
 target=3D"_blank">http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000f517250578974902--

--===============0459237359==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

--===============0459237359==--