[bluejak]

And until the RA does so, it might be worth discussing it here.

[blackshoe]

That's fair enough -- although that discussion might be better in 'changing laws and regulations". Or maybe not. If we have no guidance from on high, I suppose we have to figure out what to do ourselves. Perhaps there are two issues "what should we directors do as a practical matter now" and "how should we suggest the RA or WBFLC change things so we don't have to figure this out ourselves?"

[JoAnneM]

This is confusing to me. Why is N/S expected to make a contract that they would not have bid if E/W had not committed an infraction of BIT? The whole scenario would not exist if the BIT did not occur. At least according to ACBL rules "I would have bid it anyway" is not a logical aternatiive.

[bluejak]

Under ACBL rules - old ones anyway - redress is denied for non-offenders who "fail to play bridge" or "commit an egregious error". We are merely discussing a case where the modern equivalent, Law 12C1B, may apply - and that Law applies in the ACBL now.

[JoAnneM]

I am aware of that, but declarer would not have been put in the position of making that error if the other side had not committed an infraction first. Just a simple point that seems a bit unfair to the nonoffending side.

[duschek]

JoAnneM, on Nov 21 2009, 08:21 PM, said:

I am aware of that, but declarer would not have been put in the position of making that error if the other side had not committed an infraction first.  Just a simple point that seems a bit unfair to the nonoffending side.

... to which I replied, even before the above was written:

duschek, on Nov 21 2009, 07:04 AM, said:

However, whether the TD likes the "serious error" part of Law 12C1b or not, he cannot just ignore it in a secret wish that it weren't there.

... or, as David would probably put it: Whether we think a law is unfair or not is outside the scope of this forum; it is a matter to be discussed with the WBF-LC

[JanM]

duschek, on Nov 21 2009, 03:10 PM, said:

campboy, on Nov 21 2009, 08:14 AM, said:

So, let's suppose that the contract would be 4H without the infraction, and that the play was a serious error. How much of the damage is caused by that error? If he had made the same misplay in 4H, he would have lost an IMP. Therefore, in my opinion, the rest of the damage was caused by the fact that he was a level higher than he should have been.

It is not how I would normally calculate the self-inflicted part of the damage. But your way of thinking is certainly reasonable, and I see that maybe I should change my view.

It seems to me that the wording of Law 12C1b cannot stand on its own. A method of calculating the adjusted score should be published so as to avoid disagreements. Whether this is an issue for the WBF-LC or the RA I cannot tell.

12C1b doesn't stand completely alone. 12B1 says:
"Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred"

Here, the expectation in the absence of an infraction (assuming that there was one) was for NS to be +450. After the infraction, that expected result was unchanged - if S had not made the serious error of failing to draw trumps, NS would have been +450. The reason NS obtained a less favorable result was because of the play, not the contract. True, it seems unfair that the punishment for taking 10 tricks on a hand that is cold for 11 is 11 IMPs instead of 1 IMP, but that doesn't change the fact that the infraction didn't cause damage; the declarer play caused it.

edited to use quotes instead of blue font because [COLOR=blue] didn't work so I don't know how to make the font blue.

Edited by Blackshoe as an experiment to see how to color things. It seems you have to close the "color" tag (with slash color in brackets) even though the "color" tag starter doesn't get the asterisk to remind you to close the tag that other tags (e.g. bold, or quote) do.

[JoAnneM]

Thank you, Jan, for actually addressing my concern and showing how it is covered by the Laws. I understand it now.

[RMB1]

This was an early response to this thread.

awm, on Nov 21 2009, 08:25 AM, said:

It seems clear that the break in tempo makes bidding 4♣ more appealing. ...

But the ruling I gave disagreed right there. Instead ...

jdonn, on Nov 21 2009, 10:45 AM, said:

I'm not convinced the BIT suggests club length. It may suggest exactly the opposite, moderate values without club length. I think the connection between the BIT and the 4♣ bid is very slight so I tend to rule no damage here.

We thought that the BIT suggested bidding 3♣ over 4♣, if only to give partner the opportunity to bid his hand. We would not want to preempt partner with 4♣. So I ruled no "use of UI", no infraction, result stands.

This avoided having to rule on self-inflicted damage. I was happy to rule that failing to make 11 tricks was a serious error because I was told so!

If I had ruled that 4♣ was using UI and after 3♣ the auction would end at 4♥ 50% of the time and at 5♥ 50% then I believe the correct adjustment is as follows.

The result in the other room was 5H= NS+650.
Actual result was 5H-1 = -13IMP
Result without the infraction is 50% 4H= + 50% 5H-1 = 50% x -1 + 50% x -13 = -7IMP
Result that would have been obtained with the infraction but without the serious error is 5H= = 0IMP.

The damage is all self-inflicted, without the serious error the non-offending side would not have been damaged: the 0IMP they could have scored is better that the result without the infraction.

So the non-offending side get no adjustedment, and keep their table score, -13IMP to NS. The offending side get the adjusted score from before the infraction, 7IMP to EW. Because this is a head-to-head match we have to assign the average ajustment to both sides (L86B), NS/EW -/+10IMP.

Robin

[bluejak]

JoAnneM, on Nov 22 2009, 02:21 AM, said:

I am aware of that, but declarer would not have been put in the position of making that error if the other side had not committed an infraction first.  Just a simple point that seems a bit unfair to the nonoffending side.

Yes, no doubt, but that is the way bridge has developed. I think that the treatment of non-offenders is awful, and I would legalise the double shot.

But in fact the ACBL has led the way in being harsh on non-offenders in these sort of cases, and have always tended to deny redress to non-offenders rather more than the rest of the world. I asked about this at an ACBL Laws Commission which I was attending as an observer but had been invited to speak, and was told the ACBL is harsher on non-offenders in this type of position because professionalism is much more a part of bridge in the ACBL.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure I understand the logic of that, but perhaps "professionalism" means something different to the ACBL from what it means to me.

[barmar]

In that context, "professionalism" refers to the prevalence of professional players, not that players act in a professional manner.