[bluejak]

 jallerton, on 2012-June-05, 11:23, said:

Law 12B1 defines 'damage' and tells us when to adjust. Law 12C1c tells us how to adjust.

If the TD judges that, without an infracton, N/S would have made 8 tricks in 3NT half of the time and 9 tricks in 3NT the other half of the time, then it seems appropriate to give a weighting to N/S of:
..50% of 3NT= by N
+50% of 3NT-1 by N

Having made that judgement about the number of tricks that might be made in 3NT, isn't the TD going to use the same judgement when assigning the E/W score? So it would also seem appropriate to give a weighting to E/W of:
..50% of 3NT= by N
+50% of 3NT-1 by N

So when would the TD assign non balancing scores to two offending sides if not using Law 12C1e? (Law 12C1b is only relevant for "the non-offending side")

Why should he give the same judgement for the other side? Weighted scores include a bias towards the non-offending side. If both sides are offending I do not expect weightings to balance.

Furthermore, that is not just tricks. It also affects the bidding.

I remember sitting on an AC in Sweden. We gave:

N/S got
.. 70% of NS +420
+ 30% of NS +170

E/W got
.. 30% of NS +420
+ 70% of NS +170

TD error was involved there, so both sides were treated as non-offending. But you could have reversed those adjustments if both sides had been offending.