[aguahombre]

Yes, david...my weak humor again.

[jallerton]

ICEmachine, on Feb 20 2010, 02:25 PM, said:

jallerton, on Feb 19 2010, 06:14 PM, said:

However, if 6♦ is judged to be a SEWoG action, E/W do not "receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted".  In order to calculate this, we need to decide on E/W's expected score after the infraction has been committed but without the SEWoG action.

I can understand this, but I just dont understand why West wouldnt bid 3NT (or 6D in the hypothetical case) as the misinformation has nothing to do with his decision to bid 3NT (IMO). So what Im saying is that 3NT -2 is the expected score EW would have gotten with the correct information.

What is troubling me now is that maybe then its correct to let NS keep the table score as the misinformation didnt cause any damage.

Maybe it is clearer if you look at the definition of "damage" used in the WBF Code of Practice.

Quote

Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction.

In the instant prior to the infraction, it could not be anticipated that West was about to make the 6♦ bid in your hypothetical case, so that is not taken into account for the offending side.

Once we have established that there is "damage", Law 21B3 tells us that an adjusted score ahould only be awarded "if the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity".

Back to the actual case, if you judge that, with correct information:

(i) the auction would still always have started 1NT-(2♦)-2NT-(P)-3♣-(p)-3♦-(P); and

(ii) it is equally or more attractive for West to bid 3NT if he had been given the correct explanation;

then you would indeed rule "no advantage from the irregularity" and both sides would keep the table score.

Bluejak suggests a weighted ruling because he is not sure whether the auction up to 3♦ would have been the same or not. The fact that he includes 3♦= and 3♦+1 in the weighting suggests that:

- he believes it plausible that West is less likely to try 3NT over 3♦ with correct information; and/or

- another route to 3♦ becomes more likely given correct information.