[Ant590]

Scoring: XIMP

---

Bidding at table (1):

S [space] [space]W [space] [space]N [space] [space]E
2[cl]* [space]P [space] [space]2[di]** 2[sp]
3[he] [space] 3[sp] [space] 4[he] [space] 4[sp]
P [space] [space]P [space] [space]5[he] [space] 5[sp]
P [space] [space]P [space] [space]DBL [space]AP

* Strong two in any suit
** Relay

Result: -3 for NS+500

Score at table (2): 4S-1 NS+50
Score at table (3): 4S*-1 NS+100
Score at table (4): Unknown

After the hand is played, EW call you over and ask for you to judge if South was permitted to open a strong 2 in hearts, and if not to have a look at the hand generally. They return to speak to you after they have scored with two table (it's cross-IMPs), having lost 10 and 12 IMPs on the board so far.

Do you adjust? If so, to what score? Is 5♠ reckless?




Relevant EBU law:
10 B 4
Strong openings are often described as ‘Extended Rule of 25’ which means the minimum allowed is any of:
a. subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains as a minimum the normal high- card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear-cut tricks, or
b. any hand meeting the Rule of 25 or c) any hand of at least 16 HCPs
Examples:
♠ A K Q J x x x x ♥ x x ♦ x x ♣ x does count as 8 clear-cut tricks. ♠ A K Q x x x x x ♥ x x ♦ x x ♣ x does not.
Clear-cut tricks are clarified as tricks expected to make opposite a void in partner’s hand and the second best suit break.
Further examples: AKQxxxxx (7 CCT), KQJxxxx (5), AQJ98xx (5), KQJTx (3), KQJTxxx (6), AKT9xxxxx (8), KJTxxx (2) [examples 2, 5 and 7 have been corrected]

[campboy]

Well, you have to establish whether 2♣ was a deliberate deviation from partnership agreement, or permitted by partnership agreement. In the first case there is no infraction. In the second case, they are using an illegal method, and standard EBU procedure is to give an artificial adjusted score unless the table score is better for the non-offending side.

Teams of 8 makes it a little more complicated. Basically, you would award the team not at fault +4 IMPs on the board, and the team at fault -4 IMPs, but if the scores on the other three boards suggest this has deprived NOS of a likely better score.

[hotShot]

Did something like this happen before? Lets check, if its a concealed partnership agreement.

What was the agreement? This is important to see, if it's a misbid or misinformation.

Did the TD elaborate these facts?

I would not buy that it was a psych
.
After that it seams they play an illegal convention.

But I'd say East contributed a lot to his bad result. Not sure if that matters though.

[helene_t]

I don't see any damage. If anything, the belief that S hold more HCPs than he did should be a reason for E to not compete to the 5-level.

Anyway, they probably play an illegal method, but what do I adjust to in that case?

[Ant590]

Further to the question about 'partnership agreements' or not: The pair in question have no explicit agreement as to what constitutes a strong 2 opening, but after asking around the director finds that the pair have opened similar hands 2♣ in the past and have been (verbally) reprimanded for doing so.

Apologies for not including this initially, but I felt it might bias my write-up.

[helene_t]

Maybe this is a case for playing multi and strong twos instead of Benji. Then there are no restrictions, you can open a "strong" two with this kind of hand, at least as long as you don't just call it "strong" but disclose is properly.

Oh well they may then develop some illegal implicit understanding for which hands constitute a multi 2♦.

[campboy]

Ok, they are playing an illegal method, and have been warned about it before (they clearly have an implicit agreement). So, as the results on the other boards don't look abnormal, give +4/-4 IMPs and award a PP to the offending side of 1/2 VP (assuming there are VPs).

[hotShot]

Now it's simple.
Illegal Method => artificial adjusted Score + procedural penalty

[Ant590]

Thanks for all the replies. This was indeed the ruling given by the TD yesterday.

I was a little worried that my 5♠ bid (I was East) was too rich for "insurance" on 5♥ making, and on reflection I don't know if subconsciously I was also hedging on South not having his bid --- this did certainly NOT go through my head at the time.

But it does raise a question for me, however. Can such 'automatic' rulings always be given, regardless of the actions of EW? I.e. if we want to take the chance that the 2♣ is illegal can we just go crazy in the auction, knowing that we'll get +4IMPs if it is indeed light?

[RMB1]

Ant590, on Jan 29 2010, 01:40 PM, said:

But it does raise a question for me, however. Can such 'automatic' rulings always be given, regardless of the actions of EW? I.e. if we want to take the chance that the 2♣ is illegal can we just go crazy in the auction, knowing that we'll get +4IMPs if it is indeed light?

The adjustment for the offending side is automatic (EBU White Book 90.4.2)

The adjustment for the non-offending side is subject to Law 12C1b (EBU White Book 90.4.5). If they make a serious error or a wild or gambling action, the artificial adjustment (e.g. +4IMP) is reduced by the amount that the SEoWoGA cost: XIMPS(5H-1) - XIMPS(5SX-3).

The implementation of 90.4.2 / 90.4.5 with respect to Law 12C1b is in the draft of the new EBU White Book 2010.

Robin

[Ant590]

What's SEoWoGA? Sounds like Kriss Akabusi's catchphrase from record-breakers.

[Simplicity]

I believe he's using an odd acronym for serious error or wild or gambling.

The ebu laws are quite clear on this:

90.4.2 Illegal method, fielding of psyche, deviation or misbid
If a contestant uses a method that is not permitted, or is adjudged to have fielded a
psyche, deviation or misbid then the deal should be completed. If he attains a score of
A– or less then the score stands. Otherwise he gets A– and his opponents get A+.

and

90.4.5 Effect of 'wild or gambling' action
Non-offending opponents in #90.4.2 whose actions on the board are wild or gambling
are not entitled to an adjustment (see #12.1.3 ( and ©). ‘Wild or gambling action’ is
action markedly worse than bad bridge, and does not include defensive errors in a
contract the non-offenders should not have been defending.

So obviously if the director felt your 5♠ bid was sufficiently bad you would have scored the table result of -500 and NS would have received an ajusted score.

[RMB1]

Sorry about "SEoWoGA". We previously used "WoGA" but I guess "SEoWoGA" is too obscure.

The new draft makes changes to 90.4.5 to account for Law 12C1b, and a change of emphasis regarding defensive errors.

Quote

Non-offending opponents in #90.4.2 whose actions on the board are wild or gambling or constitute a serious error are not necessarily entitled to a full adjustment (see #12.1.3 (b.) and (c.)).  ‘Wild or gambling action or a serious error’ is action markedly worse than bad bridge, and rarely includes defensive errors in a contract the non-offenders should not have been defending unless they are particulary blatant.

Robin

[jallerton]

Shouldn't it be "SE(UttI)oWoGA" ?

[jallerton]

campboy, on Jan 29 2010, 12:07 PM, said:

Ok, they are playing an illegal method, and have been warned about it before (they clearly have an implicit agreement). So, as the results on the other boards don't look abnormal, give +4/-4 IMPs and award a PP to the offending side of 1/2 VP (assuming there are VPs).

Not necessarily. The TD should determine what the pair would open, by agreement, on:

♠none ♥J75 ♦AJ6 ♣AKJ9873

If the answer is 2♣ then you are quite right. If the answer is 1♣, then their agreement would appear to be legal, although there could be an issue with misinformation.

[campboy]

Eh? We are told they have a history of opening 2♣ on hands which don't meet the requirements and they have done so again. Seems pretty clear that they have an implicit agreement which is not permitted. The fact that they don't have an explicit agreement isn't something they can continue to hide behind.

[jallerton]

I agree that it seems pretty clear that they have an agreement to open 2♣ on intermediate strength single-suiters in hearts, but that agreement is permitted at EBU Level 4 as long as all other non-strong options do not contain 4+ clubs. (or at least do not contain 4+ clubs "as part of the specification" , however you wish to interpret that phrase).

[bluejak]

In general, you have to decide whether 2♣ was systemic. In most cases it is quite obvious once you have asked "Why did you bid 2♣?". I expect this was. Ave- to N/S. Note, not a PP as per hotshot: that is only for a Red Psyche.

I think East's actions have pushed to or beyond the limit and might reduce the redress given him.

As for an acronym, you want one that is helpful and pronounceable, so can we just agree on SEWoG please?

[RMB1]

bluejak, on Jan 30 2010, 01:23 AM, said:

I think East's actions have pushed to or beyond the limit and might reduce the redress given him.

As for an acronym, you want one that is helpful and pronounceable, so can we just agree on SEWoG please?

Lets put it in the pinned list of abbrevations.

Thinking again about reducing the redress to EW. It is likely that the score without the SEWoG (5H-1 NS-100) is better that AVE+ for EW, as NS are usually plus, in which case EW would keep their table score because the earlier calculation would give then a score worse that their table score.

When scoring XIMP it may be best to do the Law 12C1b calculations on a per comparison basis. The 4IMP (for two missing comparisons) can be seen as 2IMP per comparison. So without a SEWoG, the non-offending side get to keep a comparison that is better that 2IMP and get 2IMP for the other comparison(s).

When there is a SEWoG, we compare the results without the SEWoG to 2IMP: if the result they could have scored is better than 2IMP they keep that comparison, if the result they could have scored is worse than 2IMP they score 2IMP-(C-A) for that comparison. Where C=IMP for result they Could have got (e.g. 5H-1), A=IMP for the Actual result (e.g. 5SX-3).

Robin

[campboy]

Ah, ok, hadn't thought about considering it as a strong/non-strong combine. Also, when I said +4/-4 I was thinking it was teams-of-8.