[bluejak]

 jallerton, on 2011-May-11, 16:24, said:

1. What is the legal basis for assigning non-balancing weightings in this situation?

2. If it is legal to do this, why would the TD want to award such similar, but not identical, weightings in such a case?

Non-balancing scores adjusted scores are awarded:

• Under Law 12C1B where the non-offending side has committed SEWoG.
  
• Under Law 12C1E where different standards are applied to the offending and non-offending sides. This does not apply in the EBL which is a law 12C1C jurisdiction.
  
• Under Law 82C where a TD has given a wrong ruling rectification assumes both sides are non-offending

There may be others but I cannot think of them offhand.

Law 12C1F is a general and true comment. You cannot ignore other Laws on adjustments to rule under this Law, however.

I see no reason for the AC to split the scores, but it could be a SEWoG ruling. It would help if they were to say so. The TD ruling beggars belief.

[jallerton]

There was nothing in the AC's comments to suggest that it was a SEWoG ruling.

AC said:

Told West off for expressing his thoughts about North doing it on purpose. Players should not accuse opponents of actions that are tantamount to cheating.
The Committee noted that North had not objected to West’s assessment of the duration of the pause at 2 minutes. The Committee decided that the hesitation had been proven and of very long duration.
The Committee confirmed the Director’s decision that there was no bridge reason for the pause, and that the ruling had been correct. They decided not to change the ruling with regards to North/South.
The Committee felt however that the Director had been overly generous on West and decided to change the ruling for him.

[bluejak]

[blackshoe]

 qwery_hi, on 2011-May-12, 03:18, said:

That's news to me! I'm sentencing you to life without parole. Under which law, I will not say.

I received that sentence the day I was born — and so did everyone else.