[BLML] Score adjustment problem.

Adam Wildavsky adam at tameware.com
Tue Dec 21 21:01:37 CET 2010


On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Peter Eidt <PeterEidt at t-online.de> wrote:

> From: Adam Wildavsky <adam at tameware.com>
> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Marvin French <mfrench1 at san.rr.com>
> > wrote: >
> >
> > > In total point team play the OS bids an illegal hesitation-inspired
> > > non-vulnerable 6S over opponents'  vulnerable 6H. The spade slam
> > > makes only because of  a revoke, +980. The heart slam was cold,
> > > nothing to the play, and would have scored  +1430.
> > >
> > >
> > > The adjusted score for the OS is obviously -1430. Now,
> > >
> > > 1. What  is  the cost of the revoke, 30 points  or 980+50=1030
> > > points?
> > >
> > > 2. What is the proper adjusted score for the NOS?
> >
> > I would adjust the NOS score to +1430. I find this case analogous to
> > Kaplan's Case 6 here:
> >
> >   http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_lan0.htm
> >
> > Kaplan wrote:
> >
> > "... the N-S score should be adjusted ... even if their bid was the
> > most monstrous, moronic mistake ever made by man. This time it is the
> > N-S error that is as irrelevant as the battle of Waterloo, since the
> > zero, their damage, was unrelated to that error. Rather, the damage
> > was the direct and natural consequence of the infraction. In fact, it
> > was the inevitable consequence, so how can there be any argument?"
> >
> > As you can tell from my answer, I read 12C1(b) differently than the
> > posters so far. I could certainly be mistaken about the intent of the
> > WBF LC here. I'd love to see an official example covering a case like
> > this. I don't think the ACBL LC has considered it either -- I'll bring
> > it up.
>
> Though his position "chairman of the WBF LC" is now erased from
> the file, Ton wrote in his Commentary to the 2007 Laws:
>
> "Law 12: Redress for damage
> An infraction may create damage for the non-offending side.
> 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.
> The TD splits the damage caused by the infraction
> (consequent damage) from the subsequent damage and
> compensates the consequent damage.
>
> Examples:
> A) Teams; NS vulnerable
> NS (team A) play in 5♥ doubled after a competitive auction,
> where the opponents (team B) bid to 4♠ (NS having bid 4♥)
> after a significant break in tempo. They make 9 tricks. The TD
> decides that bidding 4♠ was not allowed and that 5♥ was
> a gambling, not normal action. He further decides that the
> play in 4♠ (undoubled) would have resulted in 8 tricks and
> the play in 4♥ in 9 tricks. The result at the other table is 3♠ -1
> for EW.
> • With normal play, team A would have received, after the
> infraction, 2 IMPs (+100/-50).
> • Without the infraction, it would have received -4 IMPs (-100/-50).
> • The TD decides that team A is not damaged by the infraction,
> so he does not adjust its score. Therefore, team A receives
> -11 IMPs (-500/-50).
> • Team B receives a score based on the expected result
> had the irregularity not occurred: +4 IMPs (+100/+50).
>
> B) The facts are comparable except that 4♠ would have been
> made (result at the other table is 3♠+1). Then the calculation
> becomes:
> • With normal play, team A would have received, after the
> infraction, -6 IMPs (-420/+170).
> • Without the infraction, it would have received +2 IMPs (-100/+170).
> • The TD decides that the damage caused by the infraction
> is 8 IMPs, so the score for team A is increased by 8 IMPs,
> resulting in - 8 (-500/+170) +8 = 0 IMPs.
> • Team B receives -2 IMPs (+100/-170)."


Thanks Peter! That case does seem analogous, and it argues against my
interpretation. It's a shame that Ton's document is not official. I can
understand why it is not, but I always wish for more examples to help
resolve cases where some find the wording of the laws ambiguous.

-- 
Adam Wildavsky  <adam at tameware.com>  www.tameware.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20101221/628e1cbe/attachment.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list