[BLML] Score adjustment problem.

Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net
Thu Dec 23 19:32:22 CET 2010

On Dec 22, 2010, at 8:35 PM, David Grabiner wrote:

> The difference is that Kaplan was referring to a match-pointed  
> event.  In
> Kaplan's example, N-S bid 4H vulnerable, E-W committed an  
> infraction by
> sacrificing in 5C after a hesitation, and N-S made a serious error  
> by bidding 5H
> down one rather than doubling 5C.  All other tables were +620 in 4H  
> making.
> After E-W bid 5C, N-S were going to get a zero no matter what they  
> did; doubling
> 5C would have given +500 for the same bottom as bidding on to 5H  
> for -100, so
> none of the damage was self-inflicted.
> The original problem specified an event with total-point scoring.  The
> difference between +500 and -100 in a total-point event is no  
> longer zero, so it
> is reasonable to argue that N-S lost 120 points by the 5C bid, and  
> 600 points by
> bidding 5H rather than doubling 5C.  With that adjustment, N-S  
> could be
> assigned -100+120=20 total points on the board.

While David makes his point, I find his example obscene for reasons  
having nothing to do with the thread discussion.

I cannot begin to imagine a scenario in which a pair that has valid  
reason to think (and is correct, no less!) that 4H will make and that  
5CX will not go down enough to compensate for the lost game could  
possibly be deemed to have committed "a serious error... or... a wild  
or gambling action" by trying 5H.  It is a huge problem that there  
are so many people in the bridge world who are prepared to credit  
examples like this; we should be careful not to give them any  
encouragement, even incidentally when discussing other topics.

Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net

More information about the Blml mailing list