[blackshoe]

I don't think 12C1{b} is intended to punish SEWoG, merely to ensure it is not rewarded.

[sfi]

benlessard, on 2014-December-18, 17:03, said:

Yes, your way is more precise since its imps-ed and take into account what happen at the other table, but i didnt want to enter another table into the discussion. The difference is often small if its a normal contract at the other table.

ex
If we assume that they are in 4D making +130/-130 at the other table, 4S-2 for +100 is "stealing" one imps. So the damage inflicted by the infraction is one imps.

-420/-130 vs +130/-130 (NS self inflicted damage) is -11 imps but +1 imps is because of the offender infraction. so its -10 imps for the NS in the op table. While using -390 and +130 equal -11 imps.

Your approach is still not right. It has the same outcome in this example, but will not always be correct.

Quote

Very good point, I would need to change the rule so that the self inflicted damage is on the contract that provide the less damages for the non-offender.

Im looking at a solution that keep the 12c1b spirit (punish Sewog) but make it more palatable. As it is now less than 10% think 12c1b is a fair rule, I think its an ok rule overall but its not fair on some specific hands.

As I understand it, you are suggesting that if the non-offending side blows a trick through SEWoG play, then the result of the original contract would be adjusted. I.e. in your example they gave up 2 tricks defending 4S, so they receive a score of 4D-2 rather than 4D= Is that correct?

If so, this is a deeply flawed approach. If not, I have missed the essence of your proposal.

[barmar]

pran, on 2014-December-18, 16:30, said:

So what is the purpose of the STOP procedure in ACBL? Who shall benefit from the imposed 10 seconds delay in the auction and how?

The idea is that partner shouldn't be able to tell whether you have a problem based on whether you hesitate, so you should hesitate always after a skip bid.

If you actually have a difficult problem, you'll naturally take at least 10 seconds, so there's no need to interrupt your thinking to count the seconds. But if you don't have anything to think about, you can sing "When I'm 64" to yourself while pretending to think. In either case, you don't have to depend on the opponent to measure the time for you.

[pran]

barmar, on 2014-December-19, 10:43, said:

The idea is that partner shouldn't be able to tell whether you have a problem based on whether you hesitate, so you should hesitate always after a skip bid.

If you actually have a difficult problem, you'll naturally take at least 10 seconds, so there's no need to interrupt your thinking to count the seconds. But if you don't have anything to think about, you can sing "When I'm 64" to yourself while pretending to think. In either case, you don't have to depend on the opponent to measure the time for you.

Precisely.

And I, for one, is completely unable to tell whether I have been thinking in 3, 5, 7 10 or even more seconds once I have reached a decision what to call. So how shall I be able to delay exactly 10 (give or take say 1) seconds when I have something to consider. Note that it is the same violation of regulation whether the delay is less than about 9 or more than about 11 seconds.

That is why we leave it to the skip bidder to keep track of the time and let his LHO concentrate on his call and nothing else.

[barmar]

I think you should be able to tell whether you've thought for a long time or not. If you have, you don't have to do anything. If you haven't, wait a few more seconds. No one is holding a stopwatch to you, measuring whether you actually took 9-11 seconds.

[barmar]

In fact, I'll go further and say that the opponent measuring the time could make things worse.

Suppose you take 20 seconds to make a decision. If the opponent takes back the STOP card at the 10-second mark, it's now very obvious to your partner that you had a difficult problem. If there's no visible clock, partner might not be able to tell how much beyond the required 10 pause you took (we don't expect him to count out the seconds to himself, do we?). Players sometimes say they don't even notice their partners' hesitations; I'm not sure how much I believe that (when I see my partner go into the tank, I start thinking about what my ethical obligations will be), but it's possible that they may be thinking about their own hand and not paying much attention to their partner until the bid comes out on the table.

[benlessard]

Quote

Your approach is still not right. It has the same outcome in this example, but will not always be correct.

like I said if I know the score at the other table or the MP filed I can calculated it (but just learned that in MP the damages is calculated in the final score of the non offender not on theboard itself). With just one table I know my way is a shortcut.

Quote

If so, this is a deeply flawed approach. If not, I have missed the essence of your proposal.

Well the serious error should get punished but it should be in the contract where it it would have the lesser consequence.

all vul, NS reach 4H that is always making +1. opps used BIT,UI to bid 4S while passing would be la. non offender grossly blew a trick. What do you think should be the ruling here and do you think its fair ?

My view is that since the revoke in 4H would cost only 1 imps I think its unfair that non offender may lose 7 or 8 imps for the revoke. If the revoke would mean that 4H would go from 4H to 4H-1 and from 4S-1 to 4S making than I agree that the cost of the Sewog should be high.

Quote

I don't think 12C1{b} is intended to punish SEWoG, merely to ensure it is not rewarded.

Its to restore equity and to avoid that NS is in a position to take double shots.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2014-December-19, 11:20, said:

I think you should be able to tell whether you've thought for a long time or not. If you have, you don't have to do anything. If you haven't, wait a few more seconds. No one is holding a stopwatch to you, measuring whether you actually took 9-11 seconds.

It's more sensible for the stop-bidder to estimate the time than his LHO. But a stop-watch or egg-timer would kill this controversy. Even simpler would be to build a 10-second timer into a Bridgemate or whatever. Appropriate rules could be inserted in the law-book, to permit a more level playing-field. Unfortunately, common sense and simplicity are not high priorities among law-makers.

[blackshoe]

benlessard, on 2014-December-19, 12:28, said:

like I said if I know the score at the other table or the MP filed I can calculated it (but just learned that in MP the damages is calculated in the final score of the non offender not on theboard itself). With just one table I know my way is a shortcut.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, but if I do, I think you're mistaken about how the calculation is done.

Step 1. What is the damage? The damage is, at match points, the difference between the matchpoint score obtained at the table, and the matchpoint score that would have been obtained had the irregularity (not talking about SEWoG yet) not occurred (Law 12B1).
Step 2. How much of that damage was caused by a SEWoG? Subtract that amount from the damage caused by the infraction.
Step 3. for the OS all of the damage (in their case, call it advantage rather than damage) is removed - they get the match point score they would have gotten had the infraction not happened.
Step 4. for the NOS, all of the damage is removed, but then the damage caused by the SEWoG is added back in. Alternatively, the difference calculated in step 2, which will be less than the difference calculated in step 1, which latter is the damage caused by the infraction, is added to the NOS score.

These results make up the adjusted matchpoint score for this board. It's a split score, meaning that the sum of the match points will not equal the total number of matchpoints available for the board.

AFAIK, the only things that are independent of the score on each board, affecting only the final total score, are procedural and disciplinary penalties.

[pran]

barmar, on 2014-December-19, 11:20, said:

I think you should be able to tell whether you've thought for a long time or not. If you have, you don't have to do anything. If you haven't, wait a few more seconds. No one is holding a stopwatch to you, measuring whether you actually took 9-11 seconds.

barmar, on 2014-December-19, 11:26, said:

In fact, I'll go further and say that the opponent measuring the time could make things worse.

Suppose you take 20 seconds to make a decision. If the opponent takes back the STOP card at the 10-second mark, it's now very obvious to your partner that you had a difficult problem. If there's no visible clock, partner might not be able to tell how much beyond the required 10 pause you took (we don't expect him to count out the seconds to himself, do we?). Players sometimes say they don't even notice their partners' hesitations; I'm not sure how much I believe that (when I see my partner go into the tank, I start thinking about what my ethical obligations will be), but it's possible that they may be thinking about their own hand and not paying much attention to their partner until the bid comes out on the table.

You have your opinion, but your assertions do not match Our experience.

So in Norway (and in fact I believe in most other countries apparently excluding USA) the essential part of the regulation (with which we are very happy) is:

The player who makes a call for which STOP is mandatory shall signal this by facing the STOP card or saying the word "stop". The pause shall last approximately 10 Seconds, and the same player who faced the STOP card (or said "stop") shall signal at the end of the pause.

This player's LHO is supposed to call without further delay when end of the pause is signalled, however he is always entitled to a 10 Seconds pause even if the end of pause is signalled before 10 Seconds have elapsed.

[sfi]

benlessard, on 2014-December-19, 12:28, said:

Well the serious error should get punished but it should be in the contract where it it would have the lesser consequence.

all vul, NS reach 4H that is always making +1. opps used BIT,UI to bid 4S while passing would be la. non offender grossly blew a trick. What do you think should be the ruling here and do you think its fair ?

My view is that since the revoke in 4H would cost only 1 imps I think its unfair that non offender may lose 7 or 8 imps for the revoke. If the revoke would mean that 4H would go from 4H to 4H-1 and from 4S-1 to 4S making than I agree that the cost of the Sewog should be high.

To summarise, you adjust the number of tricks taken in the contract (assuming there are two options) that gives the non-offending side a better score?

Adjusting for illogical actions in a contract that was never played doesn't seem to have anything to do with trying to restore equity. So I don't see an improvement over the current approach (which most people think is already fair) and it's going to be a nightmare for directors to try and explain this to all sides.

You also have to remember, we're not talking about adjusting when the defence missed a ruff or two. The decision has to be really bad to adjust using SEWoG principles. It's simply not going to come up that much and it's entirely reasonable that they cost themselves points when they do.

[benlessard]

Quote

over the current approach (which most people think is already fair)

http://bridgewinners...=156382#c156382
http://www.bridgebas...age__mode__show

Less than 15% think 12c1b is a fair rule on some clearcut UI/bit hands. I think its an ok rule but with a correctable flaw.

Quote

Adjusting for illogical actions in a contract that was never played doesn't seem to have anything to do with trying to restore equity.

Adjusting for sewog in a contract that shouldnt never have been played in the first place doesnt make more sense if you thikn about it, at least thats what bug 90% of the players Imo. They just say that NS should never be punished because they made a mistake in a contract that should never have happened if this mistake put them with a score under +620.

Ive heard twice right now that the best procedure is to...

Quote

When applying 12C1(b) you always give both sides the same table result, in this case 4H= 620. After which you calculate the MP (or IMP) difference between the expected result after the infracion (+500) to the actual result (-790).

Lets assume the frequency table including our assigned result looks like this

1 +170
3 +500
3 +620

That means that 620 would be 10 out of 12 (or 5 out of 6).
Now we look at the frequency table with the expected result after the infraction

1 +170
4 +500
2 +650

So +500 should give NS 5 out of 12.

The brain dead defence was -790, that's 0 out of 12, so the part that they are not giving redress for is 5MP, so the correct results is 620 to both sides, but reduce NS with 5MP so they end up with 5 and EW with 2.

The twist ive heard is that removing the 5Mp should be on the final score and not on the board score directly, its fairer because it keep a reasonnable score comparative for the other tables. This was confirmed to me by a top level director.

[sfi]

benlessard, on 2014-December-19, 18:06, said:

http://bridgewinners...=156382#c156382
http://www.bridgebas...age__mode__show

Less than 15% think 12c1b is a fair rule on some clearcut UI/bit hands. I think its an ok rule but with a correctable flaw.

I can't see the results on bridgebase, but the data here and the comments there both support a completely different position than your interpretation. To me it says that most (7/9) people think SEWoG considerations never matter if the unauthorised action was going to result in a worse score for the non-offending side. It also says 6/9 of the people think the bar for SEWoG should be much higher than "not playing perfect defence".

That is what the current laws do.

Quote

Adjusting for sewog in a contract that shouldnt never have been played in the first place doesnt make more sense if you thikn about it, at least thats what bug 90% of the players Imo. They just say that NS should never be punished because they made a mistake in a contract that should never have happened if this mistake put them with a score under +620.

Ive heard twice right now that the best procedure is to...

Yes. That's how the adjustment currently works. SEWoG considerations only come into play when:
- The offending side takes an action for which an adjustment is warranted.
- The non-offending side was going to get a better result than they would have in the contract you (as the director) would adjust to.
- The non-offending side damages themselves via a serious error, wild, or gambling action.

In your poll, if E-W can only get +500 in 4Sx, then the contract would be adjusted to +620, no matter how many tricks they stuff up. If they could have gotten 800 and managed to blow 3 tricks in something that was judged to be a serious error, etc., then their score would be adjusted accordingly.

I'm still not sure what you are arguing about. Your latest post seems to be supporting the current laws.

[blackshoe]

benlessard, on 2014-December-19, 18:06, said:

They just say that NS should never be punished because they made a mistake in a contract that should never have happened if this mistake put them with a score under +620.

Players need to get over this "an adverse ruling is punishment" nonsense.

[blackshoe]

benlessard, on 2014-December-19, 18:06, said:

The twist ive heard is that removing the 5Mp should be on the final score and not on the board score directly, its fairer because it keep a reasonnable score comparative for the other tables. This was confirmed to me by a top level director.

Which top level director? And "top level" where?

[benlessard]

Quote

It also says 6/9 of the people think the bar for SEWoG should be much higher than "not playing perfect defence".

Everybody agree that Sewog should have a bar quite high. Some say similar to a revoke and I agree, for me a serious error is a brain dead play not just an "C" level bad play.

Quote

To me it says that most (7/9) people think SEWoG considerations never matter if the unauthorised action was going to result in a worse score for the non-offending side.

When the proper ruling is about -570 but 90% say the fairest score is +620 its a 1200 pts difference it cannot be clearer than this.

At least 80% hate Sewog rules especially on hands where you give a game instead of making one. No matter how you look at it its obvious to me. None of the pro defended 12c1b, while it was blasted by M.Rosenberg, Kit Woolsey and others. They suggest that its only if a better score (like +800) was available that NS shouldnt be protected but if only +500 was available NS should be protected with a +620. Its a M.Rosenberg and Colker idea that was supported by B.Rigal too.

The only players that defended Sewog is me, Ed Reppert and another player.

[benlessard]

http://bridgewinners...=156191#c156191

Conversation about 12c1b

[sfi]

benlessard, on 2014-December-19, 21:16, said:

When the proper ruling is about -570 but 90% say the fairest score is +620 its a 1200 pts difference it cannot be clearer than this.

Can you explain under what conditions you believe -570 is an accurate ruling? It's not even a normal bridge score, so on the face of it your claim that this is what this law says does not make sense.

The current law says that NS+620 for both sides is the correct adjustment if only 500 is available against 4Sx. That's really straightforward.

Quote

At least 80% hate Sewog rules especially on hands where you give a game instead of making one. No matter how you look at it its obvious to me. None of the pro defended 12c1b, while it was blasted by M.Rosenberg, Kit Woolsey and others. They suggest that its only if a better score (like +800) was available that NS shouldnt be protected but if only +500 was available NS should be protected with a +620. Its a M.Rosenberg and Colker idea that was supported by B.Rigal too.

That's also what law 12C1B says. If you think otherwise, you are misreading it. These players are, broadly speaking, supporting the current law and discussing the conditions under which it applies.

[benlessard]

Quote

Can you explain under what conditions you believe -570 is an accurate ruling? It's not even a normal bridge score, so on the face of it your claim that this is what this law says does not make sense.

http://www.worldbrid...scommentary.pdf

"Redress is given only for damage caused by that infraction, not for damage
as a result of a subsequent serious error. This includes wild or gambling actions, and, for example, the loss of an
extra trick as rectification after a revoke."

If +500 in 4Sx -2 is easily available the damages cause from the infraction is 120pts (from +620 to +500). Your revoke in 4Sx costing 2 tricks will give a score of -790 going from +500 to -790 is self-inflicted damage and you do not get redress from this damage. The score need to be translated into MP or imps. Basically you will the the MP score of -790 (almost a sure zero) + the MP difference of +500 to +620 (wich is the MP damages that is inflicted by the infraction).

If there is only one table a score shortcut is -790 + 120 = -670 for NS. I repeat you are protected from the damages cause by the infraction (from +620 to +500) you are not protected from not for damage as a result of a subsequent serious error (Going from +500 to -790).

The 12c1b used to be called something like "no redress for failure to play bridge".

Note that in all cases offender (EW) keep their -620 for 4H making.