[blackshoe]

VixTD, on 2015-May-27, 10:35, said:

It's because law 82 requires us to consider both sides as non-offending, so any doubt in what score to assign is skewed slightly in favour of both sides. I'm not sure the 10% weighting away from what you think is the most likely outcome is written in stone, but I think it is pretty much standard in England. WB4.1.1.4:

I've never seen 10% written in stone or anything else. Also, that quote from the WB doesn't mention 10%.

I know we should treat both sides as non-offending, but it does seem awfully generous to the side that caused the problem in the first place by revoking.

[VixTD]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-27, 17:13, said:

I've never seen 10% written in stone or anything else. Also, that quote from the WB doesn't mention 10%.

A 10% advantage is given to the non-offenders when awarded an artificial adjusted score (law 12C2), perhaps that's where it comes from. It seems a pretty equitable adjustment to me.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2015-May-27, 14:46, said:

Also West has to carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI, which is the sight of the ace of spades. Only if the double unequivocally asked for a spade lead would he be allowed to select that. I now think the correct adjustment is to 7NTx= for both sides and I now agree that this is treating both sides as non-offending.

Your assessment of the meaning of the double looks sensible to me, and I didn't ever really think that West would get away with leading a spade, I just wanted to make the point that if it were allowed and it were judged that West would lead it some of the time, EW could end up with a worse score than the one they got after the TD's uncorrected misruling.