Ruling?

[fyrish]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s5hqj64dj432c9876&w=saqt4hak73dkcaj43&e=sk32ht9852d875ct2&s=sj9876hdaqt96ckq5]399|300|Scoring: IMP

[/hv]

 

 

South opened 1♦, West Doubled and North raised to 2♦. East passed and South bid 3♦. West paused before passing and East bid 3♥ which West raised to 4♥. West's hesitation was agreed by EW.

 

4♥ made on poor defence and the director was called. What should the ruling be?

[helene_t]

I think pass is a logical alternative for East. Adjusting to 3♦= or 3♦-1 I suppose (haven't analyzed the play in 3♦)

 

West's pass is really weird.

[Hanoi5]

I'd give E/W whatever 3♦ would receive but I'm not sure what I'd give N/S, probably an average as they let E/W make 4♥, I don't want to reward them for bad play.

[ArtK78]

Quite frankly, I can't imagine East letting his opponents play in 3♦ after a takeout double at the one level by his partner. So, I am not convinced that I would take away the result of 4♥ making.

 

If this is IMPs, as the conditions seem to indicate, a split ruling is not practical.

[kgr]

I'd give E/W whatever 3♦ would receive but I'm not sure what I'd give N/S, probably an average as they let E/W make 4♥, I don't want to reward them for bad play.

Quite frankly, I can't imagine East letting his opponents play in 3♦ after a takeout double at the one level by his partner. So, I am not convinced that I would take away the result of 4♥ making.

If this is IMPs, as the conditions seem to indicate, a split ruling is not practical.

I don't understand giving a split ruling here. Either you decide that Pass was not a logical alternative for 3♥ and you let the result stand; Or you decide that Pass was a logical alternative for 3♥ and then 3♥ should be taken away and you give the likely result for playing 3♦ by S.

...How can you say that 3♥ should not have been bid, but then still say that because the defence was bad you give the result of 4♥= to EW? If 3♥ didn't exist then there is no (bad) defence against 4♥.

[Echognome]

Would do the Walmart rollback to 3♦ based on the information above.

[blackshoe]

I'd give E/W whatever 3♦ would receive but I'm not sure what I'd give N/S, probably an average as they let E/W make 4♥, I don't want to reward them for bad play.

Can't do that, it's illegal. Unless the play was considerably worse than just "bad". Also, you can't give "average" as part of an assigned adjusted score, which is awarded when a result was obtained at the table.

 

You can't weight scores (50% of 3♦ making, 50% of some other contract, for example) in the ACBL, either.

 

East has UI from West's pause before passing 3♦, and it seems to me pass is a logical alternative for East. NS were damaged (they got a worse score than they would have had the irregularity not occurred). I would therefore rule illegal use of UI, and award an assigned adjusted score. Now, in awarding such a score we give the NOS the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. That appears to me to be 3♦+1. We give the OS the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, which for them appears to be the same thing. So I would award +130 to NS and -130 to EW. If I were to be convinced that making four ♦ is not likely, I would award +110 to NS, and still -130 to EW.

 

I don't know if this qualifies as a "Walmart rollback", since I don't know what that is. :P

[peachy]

East has UI from West and the UI message is clear = West has extra values. Pass by East is a LA because he is not allowed to use the knowledge that West has extras. The contract should be ruled to be 3D making at least three, for both sides. Whatever happened at defending 4H is irrelevant because the 3H bid will be cancelled because it is illegal.

[fyrish]

This was a teams competition. The ruling given was that EW got -110 (3♦ making) but NS got -620 as they were not damaged by the bidding but by their own "inferior" play. The score for EW seems fairly straightforward but I thought the NS score was unusual. How bad does your defence have to be before you get a ruling like this?

[Gerben42]

How bad does your defence have to be before you get a ruling like this?

 

Irrational, wild or gambling (according to the laws).

[Finch]

How bad does your defence have to be before you get a ruling like this?

 

Irrational, wild or gambling (according to the laws).

This changed slightly in the new Laws to

 

"(:) If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has

contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the

infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the

adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending

side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the

consequence of its infraction only."

 

The way this is implemented is quite complex. Assuming I've understood it right, you do the following:

 

- Decide if the defence to 4H was so bad as to be a "serious error" or wild, or gambling.

- If not, award a contract of 3D both ways (making some number of tricks as you determine)

- If so, award EW -110 (or -130 or whatever)

- Work out the consequence of the "serious error" which converted +100 from 4H to -620. If the result in the other room was, say, -100 in 4H then that is, say, 13 imps (I don't know the imp table off by heart)

- NS's imp result on the board is then equal to {imps from making 3D} - {imps caused by their own error}

- This probably comes to the same result as awaring NS -620, but it's conceptually different.

 

At least, this is how the EBL (and the EBU) understand this law.

[fyrish]

"( If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has

contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the

infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the

adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending

side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the

consequence of its infraction only."

 

 

This Law does seem to explain the ruling. However it does seem a bit harsh that NS have to defend against a contract that the opps weren't able to bid properly.

[Gerben42]

To clarify the "Law" a bit more, another example:

 

West North East South

 

2♥* 2♠ 3♥ 3♠

4♥ 4♠ Pass Pass

Dbl Rdbl Pass Pass

Pass

 

2♥ was asked and explained as a weak 2. The real agreement was intermediate and a 2-suiter. Opener then bid twice voluntarily to try and compensate for partner. 4♠ went down 2 (redoubled) and the director was called.

 

Since the Rdbl was considered "silly" the table result was set to 4♠ undoubled down 2 (it was ruled that 4♠ would be reached if opener passed on his 2nd and 3rd turn), NS -100. The "other table" makes 4♥, NS -420 (in fact this was an MP event but let's assume it's IMPs (also guessing the IMP table :))

 

Table score: NS lose 180: -5 IMPs.

Director score: NS win 320: +8 IMPs.

Had NS not redoubled: NS lose 120: +3 IMPs.

 

So the 8 IMPs between -5 and +3 are still deducted from NS's score for being silly, making the final result:

 

NS side get +8 - 8 = 0 IMPs

EW side get -8 IMPs

 

Similarly at MP, let's assume that

 

-100 gives NS 70 of 100 MP

-300 gives NS 30 of 100 MP

-600 gives NS 0 of 100 MP (obviously)

 

In this case they get 70 - 30 = 40 MP, and EW get 100 - 70 = 30 MP.

For the rest of the field, the board will be scored as NS -100 (have fun, scoring program writers!).

[Codo]

In the given case, when does a defence is so bad that it will influence the ruling?

 

Lets say, south lead a spade, not unreasonable because a minor can blow a trick.

Declarer takes a finesse with the ten and now has 4 Spade tricks for a club discard.

He draws one round of trump, seeing the split and play a spade. North ruffs. Is this a serious mistake?

He reaches partner in diamond and get a second ruff. He tries to reach partner in a minor, but no success. This is a defence that allows 4 Heart to make. You can call it a bad defence, but is it a serious error?

 

What if North does not ruff a spade at once but later? Is that bad?

 

Would it be bad enough for a serious mistake not to split honours when a small club is lead towards dummy? After all , when I play the queen, declarer may set up a club for a discard anyway and ducking may give him some problems.

 

I think I would score -110 or -130 for both sides when the error was not as bad as ruffing a winner or blowing another obvious trick, But what do I know where the borderline for a serious mistake is.

[MFA]

To clarify the "Law" a bit more, another example:

 

West North East South

 

2♥* 2♠ 3♥ 3♠

4♥ 4♠ Pass Pass

Dbl Rdbl Pass Pass

Pass

 

2♥ was asked and explained as a weak 2. The real agreement was intermediate and a 2-suiter. Opener then bid twice voluntarily to try and compensate for partner. 4♠ went down 2 (redoubled) and the director was called.

 

Since the Rdbl was considered "silly" the table result was set to 4♠ undoubled down 2 (it was ruled that 4♠ would be reached if opener passed on his 2nd and 3rd turn), NS -100. The "other table" makes 4♥, NS -420 (in fact this was an MP event but let's assume it's IMPs (also guessing the IMP table ;))

 

Table score: NS lose 180: -5 IMPs.

Director score: NS win 320: +8 IMPs.

Had NS not redoubled: NS lose 120: +3 IMPs.

 

So the 8 IMPs between -5 and +3 are still deducted from NS's score for being silly, making the final result:

 

NS side get +8 - 8 = 0 IMPs

EW side get -8 IMPs

 

Similarly at MP, let's assume that

 

-100 gives NS 70 of 100 MP

-300 gives NS 30 of 100 MP

-600 gives NS 0 of 100 MP (obviously)

 

In this case they get 70 - 30 = 40 MP, and EW get 100 - 70 = 30 MP.

For the rest of the field, the board will be scored as NS -100 (have fun, scoring program writers!).

Are you sure that this method is correct?

I have never heard before about a situation, where you don't establish a table result before any imps or mps are calculated.

The table result might be X for NS and Y for EW. Or 60% X and 40% Y. Etc. But it is a table result as such.

[Finch]

see

 

http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3750

 

for more on this topic

[MFA]

see

 

http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3750

 

for more on this topic

Thanks, nice link!

[JoAnneM]

I think the -620 should not even be considered in the equation. For one thing when you have a situation with a "director call/damage assessment" the NOS might be a little "unhinged" by the whole thing and not up to their best defense, and why penalize them for doing badly something they shouldn't even be doing? It just doesn't make sense.

 

The score should be rolled back to 3D, making whatever the director determines.

[peachy]

This was a teams competition. The ruling given was that EW got -110 (3♦ making) but NS got -620 as they were not damaged by the bidding but by their own "inferior" play. The score for EW seems fairly straightforward but I thought the NS score was unusual. How bad does your defence have to be before you get a ruling like this?

To say they were not damaged by the bidding makes no sense. They *were* damaged because they should not have been defending 4H.

When East passes (he was the last to pass) the contract would be 3D. When East bids 3H, and the 3H bid is ruled illegal (using UI) the contract becomes 3D. There is no path to 4H after the 3H bid is cancelled and all considerations as to what score to be assigned, are based on the contract being 3D.

 

This case cannot consider "how bad the defense was" against an illegal contract. After the infraction during the auction is remedied, the subsequent illegal call(s) cease to exist. They are certainly not reinstated for the purpose of penalizing the NOS for their bad defense.

[Fluffy]

I remember having to keep my score for defending against a game that was bid thx to a long tank but wasn't making. I found it kinda unfair.

 

I agree with joanne that when this thins arise, you are not in your best mood for defending perfectly. IMO the defending error should be blatant for the result to stay.

[awm]

To say they were not damaged by the bidding makes no sense. They *were* damaged because they should not have been defending 4H.

....

 

This case cannot consider "how bad the defense was" against an illegal contract. After the infraction during the auction is remedied, the subsequent illegal call(s) cease to exist. They are certainly not reinstated for the purpose of penalizing the NOS for their bad defense.

This is not quite the case. The reasoning goes something like this...

 

Suppose that opponents, through some abuse of UI, reach 6NT (say there is a slow response to blackwood and opponents then choose to bid on when no logical person would do so off two aces). I am on lead with two aces. I lead one ace, then continue that suit. Eventually the contract makes.

 

Certainly if opponents had not abused UI, they would not have been in 6NT, and I would not have had the opportunity to let them score up 990. But come on! Their unethical bidding landed them in the soup, all I had to do was lead my aces and I was winning many IMPs! How is it fair that I pay no penalty for my idiotic defense on this hand? Certainly if I had lead my aces and set them a trick, the director would not then rule the contract back to five-making-five because "if the opponents had not abused UI, they would only be in five and I would not have had the opportunity to defeat them."

 

If the laws were interpreted as you suggest, then it would be to my advantage to take certain crazy actions when opponents may have abused UI. For example, suppose that opponents bid to game in an uncontested hesitation auction. I might as well double. If the game goes down then I win more by doubling. If the game makes then I will call the director and complain that opponents would not have gotten to game without the UI. This is what's called a "double shot" and is not allowed -- I have to continue to play "normal bridge" in order to get my adjusted result.

[nige1]

IMO

• The director should impose a score of 3♦= for both sides.
  
• Peachy is right. I hope the defenders' errors were not egregious because the relevant law seems unjust, daft, and incomprehensible to ordinary players -- just adding insult to injury.
  
• ACBLers are lucky compared with players in Europe, who are bemused by weird compromise 12C3 rulings that neither deter law-breakers nor provide redress for their victims. Directors usually differ on the appropriate fudge.
  
• Both directors and players are befuddled by these over-sophisticated and unnecessary laws.
  

[blackshoe]

weird compromise 12C3 rulings

In individual events the director enforces the rectifications in these Laws and the provisions requiring the award of adjusted scores equally against both members of the offending side, even though only one of them may be responsible for the irregularity. But the director shall not award a procedural penalty against the offender’s partner if of the opinion that offender’s partner is in no way to blame.

:( :) :) :)

[fyrish]

At the table, the director didn't even ask how the defence was played, he just assumed that any defence that let 4♥ make was inferior. This certainly seems tough on NS.

[nige1]

see http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3750 for more on this topic

If the laws were interpreted as you suggest, then it would be to my advantage to take certain crazy actions when opponents may have abused UI. For example, suppose that opponents bid to game in an uncontested hesitation auction. I might as well double. If the game goes down then I win more by doubling. If the game makes then I will call the director and complain that opponents would not have gotten to game without the UI. This is what's called a "double shot" and is not allowed -- I have to continue to play "normal bridge" in order to get my adjusted result.

At the table, the director didn't even ask how the defence was played, he just assumed that any defence that let 4♥ make was inferior. This certainly seems tough on NS.

IMO the double-shot law is flawed:

• As Frances's link illustrates, top directors don't understand double-shot law.
  
• This law protects experts who break the law. For example..
  • Directors rarely have the effrontery to apply this law to experts who anyway can usually concoct a plausible argument as to why their action wasn't really "wild and gambling".
    
  • Use of UI by an expert may to go unreported. His ordinary opponent will sometimes make a subsequent daft mistake. It is a brave opponent who will endure the hassle of calling the director, when the expected outcome is to be pilloried for errors and then deprived of redress.
    

  [*]This law penalizes ordinary players. They are more likely to make mistakes and take peculiar actions. Also we must lean over backwards to avoid a likely winning action that to us would be normal, in case a director rules it "wild and gambling". It is galling to settle for some middle-of-the road action and a poor result, and then the director judges opponents innocent of any infraction and the action you wanted to take would have been successful.

  [*]Double-shots aren't intrinsically immoral as awm implies. Opponents (not you) broke the law. Why should it be morally wrong to profit from their infraction.

  [*]Anyway, you don't need a special law against double-shots. Without such a law, you would still be foolhardy to try a wild gamble, because to recover from the likely catastrophe, you must persuade the director that

  • An opponent was in receipt of UI that could have influenced his action.
    
  • There were was a less successful logical alternative.
    
  • The UI demonstrably suggested the successful alternatve chosen over other alternatives and
    
  • You were damaged as a result.
    

In summary: double-shot law encourages UI infractions by reducing the deterrent to law-breakers and denying redress to their victims. It is subjective and sophisticated but, for players, it adds no value whatsoever. It is daft and unnecessary.