Illegal Agreement
This came up the other day. It was in a KO match and made no difference to the final result so we never asked for a ruling.
Teams match, scored by IMPs
At table 1, N/S are playing an illegal pre-emptive agreement. They open their (illegal) toy in third seat, EW aren't entirely sure how to defend against it, and end up defending 3S undoubled for one off when they had a combined 26-count. Technically there's no game their way with par +130 but without the toy who knows what might have happened, because...
At the other table, N/S do something that one politely call swingy in first seat, EW get to a non-making game and NS let it through on the lead, EW +600.
So the 'offending' team are -50 and +600, the +600 being at the 'clean' table.
How do you rule?
The White Book says the result is cancelled and +/- 3 IMPs awarded.
But does 86 B1 still apply? The 'offending' +600 was clearly very favourable to their side, and it seems odd for them not to get the benefit of it when there was nothing wrong at the table where they scored it.
Against that, we don't know what would have happened without the toy, maybe EW would have got to the same non-making game, and maybe it would also have been let through.
Comments
I think you start by looking at it as you would a weighted ruling. Assume that you think it would be usual to reach 3NT and that it might be let through half the time. That would give a result of 12 IMPs half the time, or 6 IMPs. The question is then about whether we replace the initial +3/-3 with this score, or combine the two, or award a fine in addition to the weighted score.
Chris Benneworth has been working on a paper about L86 that I hope will be discussed at the next L&E meeting.
WB 1.9.7: If a pair play an illegal agreement then the board is completed. If their opponents have [...] gained 3 IMPs or more, the result stands unchanged. Otherwise, the result is cancelled, and the board re-scored as average plus to the opponents, average minus to the pair.
This seems to specifically cover the case where the non-offending side gets a good result on the "innocent" table, and excludes where the offending side does.
It might seem harsh but then they shouldn't play an illegal agreement.
As an aside (I ask because I want to know): I can find nowhere in the Laws (as opposed to the WB/BB) that makes reference to illegal agreements or to any penalties for using them. Where do the laws give the regulating authority the right to declare an agreement illegal and apply a penalty or using it? What am I missing?
40B2(a)(i) & 40B4.
Thank you.
I looked there and mised it! Serves me right for looking at tbe laws after midnight.
Was the illegal agreement properly disclosed? Grattan Endicott (RIP) liked to remind TDs that if an agreement was misexplained and the TD decided that the actual agreement was illegal, the TD should consider an adjusted score for misinformation and only cancel the board if the adjustment was not worth +3 to non-offenders; but this was before Law 86B1.
In this case, yes. They were playing a 2D opening as a weak two in hearts or spades, or a sound pre-empt in diamonds (and p.s this was a Level 5 event)
I thnk that 86B1 does apply - but that says the TD shall award an assigned adjusted score which refers us to 12C1(c) (weighted scores) - but also 12C1(d) applies. (if the results are numerous or not obvious then the TD may award an artificial Adjusted Score (See C2)) - which leads us to the default +- 3imps.or however many are awarded under the CoC. Law 40B4 of course also applies - meaning that a PP may be imposed. Since you have no way of working out what would have happened if the OS had played a different (legal) system you go to the artificial assigned adjusted score
So WB 1.9.7 (assuming correctly stated) is basically a quick way of following through the logic above.